• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Mankads

Do you think mankads are against the spirit of the game?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 15.7%
  • No

    Votes: 43 84.3%

  • Total voters
    51

Red_Ink_Squid

Global Moderator
I don't think we'll ever find out who was lying and who wasn't. It's better to leave it at that. The non-striker repeatedly left the crease before the ball left the bowler's hand, so there's a chance that a warning was given but there is no way to concretely throw weight behind either side on this.
Agreed. I reckon TJB's take earlier is the most likely one (India complained on field about Dean's backing up, but didn't specifically say something like "we are going to mankad you" when they had her attention. Thus they feel she was warned, she doesn't feel like she got a warning, neither party is outright lying) but we can't know.

Since there's no obligation to give a warning it's doesn't affect the legitimacy of the dismissal anyway. But I guess it brings the sites reporting on the story a lot of clicks to keep stirring things.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Agreed. I reckon TJB's take earlier is the most likely one (India complained on field about Dean's backing up, but didn't specifically say "we are going to mankad you" when they had her attention. Thus they feel she was warned, she doesn't feel like she got a warning, neither party is outright lying) but we can't know.

Since there's no obligation to give a warning it's doesn't affect the legitimacy of the dismissal anyway. But I guess it brings the sites reporting on it a lot of clicks.

Even then, I would argue Heather cannot come out and say that an entire team and its players are lying. I just dont see any way Heather can be right here, coz as a person who was not there, she really need not have commented on anything except maybe her own feelings on it when asked.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Anti-climatic way to win a match but not one to complain about losing that way. IMO.

It’s not really enforceable but the best way to be rid of it would be that you can’t be out before the ball is released but that the ground underneath the non-striker blows up if they try and set off before the ball is released. That’ll stop them
 

Days of Grace

International Captain
What if a bowler attempts a mankad by throwing the ball at the stumps but they miss? Can the batters run overthrows?
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Imagine that. World cup final, India vs England. 9 down, 4 to win, Ashwin is at the non strikers.

Topley or some other **** thinks its time to take revenge and spins around to have a shy at the stumps, overthrows, four.

Ashwin celebrates by pointing to his forehead. Ashley Bach gives up cricket. Grecian goes “boo”. King Charles returns the Kohinoor.
 

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Imagine that. World cup final, India vs England. 9 down, 4 to win, Ashwin is at the non strikers.

Topley or some other **** thinks its time to take revenge and spins around to have a shy at the stumps, overthrows, four.

Ashwin celebrates by pointing to his forehead. Ashley Bach gives up cricket. Grecian goes “boo”. King Charles returns the Kohinoor.
God the strategies around fake out stuff would be amazing.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Is the ball “live” if it hasn’t been bowled?
If I understand correctly, the ball is live as soon as the bowler starts running in

Begs the question, if the ball is live from that point, why can't the batsmen run a bye while the bowler is running in (risking a run out if the bowler decides to throw the stumps down during their run in). Or maybe they can
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Cricket has a few rules that defy common sense, but if you can be run out at any stage that the ball is "live" it stands to reason that you should be able to steal a run at that stage as well
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If I understand correctly, the ball is live as soon as the bowler starts running in

Begs the question, if the ball is live from that point, why can't the batsmen run a bye while the bowler is running in (risking a run out if the bowler decides to throw the stumps down during their run in). Or maybe they can
I guess the bowler could just pull out of the action and it becomes a dead ball
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
I don't wish to infer that Indians are the only ones who do Mankads, it's just that in reading from you and others that there is not the stigma like there is in my country, for example. And now I know why.

Ultimately, as was my first point in all this, I would like to see the ICC bring the law more into line with the situation with some who think it is contrary to how cricket should be played, and those who don't. I would point to the fact it has been done once each by a major nation in both men's and women's internationals in 30 years to suggest it is not generally 'acceptable practice', because there's certainly more batsmen who take liberties at the non-strikers. Get them behind the line somehow, I have absolutely no problem with that. Then penalise bowlers who try it and fail.
An idea I had the other day is maybe to penalise the batting team 1 run for any runs scored off any balls where they had left the crease prior to the bowler releasing the ball. So they scramble a quick single, it's worth zip, if they hit a 6, it's only worth 5 etc. The third umpire can check for it at the same time he checks for the no-ball.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Yeah I suspect something like short runs being signalled whenever the batsmen has taken excessive liberties is where this will end up. I don't see any sign that this debate is going to be resolved either way.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Nah... they are not gonna change the laws that easily. The debate is mostly from whingers. I think the short run is still very unfair on the bowler who has to endure a free hit in LO games for overstepping even by an inch. The no-run + free-ball, mirroring the no-ball + free-hit, seems the ideal solution to me.
 

Top