Should Mankading law be outlawed?

[Red]

Law 23:5 - Ball ceases to be dead

The ball ceases to be dead - that is, it comes into play - when the bowler starts his run up or, if he has no run up, his bowling action.

So, the ball is live as the bowler starts his run up. AFAIC if someone is cribbing their ground it's not really cheating, it's just taking a risk that they could be run out. I honestly don't see why the non-striker needs this advantage and I think it should be perfectly acceptable to run someone out if they're out of their crease in a "mankad" scenario.

That said, there's a history of etiquette with this that means if I did it playing in my grade I'd feel a ****. But I think cricket worldwide should just do away with this particular piece of etiquette because it doesn't make any sense.

 

[StephenZA]

So, the ball is live as the bowler starts his run up. AFAIC if someone is cribbing their ground it's not really cheating, it's just taking a risk that they could be run out. I honestly don't see why the non-striker needs this advantage and I think it should be perfectly acceptable to run someone out if they're out of their crease in a "mankad" scenario.

That said, there's a history of etiquette with this that means if I did it playing in my grade I'd feel a ****. But I think cricket worldwide should just do away with this particular piece of etiquette because it doesn't make any sense.

You raise an important point, what would happen at junior levels? I know what my teacher, when he was umpiring, would have said to me if I was bowling and tried to run out the opposition like this. Unless the non-striker was in the middle of the pitch, and even then he would probably have warned him not to do it rather than allow the run out....

One of the issues here is the subjectiveness of this scenario, was he genuinely trying to bowl the ball? What happens if you lose your run up, realize that the batsman is out of the crease and go for the run-out, when normally this would just be called dead ball.... I really think the current rules cause more problems than it solves.

 

[Red]

If the ball is live when the bowler starts his run up, then the batsman needs to make sure he is in his crease until the ball is delivered. It's as black and white as that (or it should be).

Onus is entirely on the non-striker, and if he's out of his crease he can be run out.

 

[StephenZA]

If the ball is live when the bowler starts his run up, then the batsman needs to make sure he is in his crease until the ball is delivered. It's as black and white as that (or it should be).

Onus is entirely on the non-striker, and if he's out of his crease he can be run out.

Unless he was never intending to bowl the ball... then the bowl was always dead! I never understood this rule anyway, why not make the ball 'live' at the start of the bowling action, its already true for anybody who does not have a run-up. Why does the run-up become important. This is not baseball you can`t steal runs before the ball is bowled!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Agreed, but some kind of deranged hokey-cokey resulting from a bowler trying to encourage a batsman to leave his crease early in order to gain a wicket would be bloody stupid. The balance needs to be right, and at the moment we're in some silly hybrid situation where the batsmen don't know the motivation of each bowler and thus think they can get away with stealing a march when really they shouldn't. Some clarification is required, even if that clarification is that the current law applies and a bowler won't be seen as a pariah for effecting a Mankad, and perhaps (if the current dismissal penalty still applies) then perhaps five penalty runs should be awarded to the batting team in the event of a Mankad attempt failing because the batsman never left the crease at all.

Yeah I just don't really get how that would be effective if batsmen thought they could be dismissed via Mankad. How are you going to trick the batsmen into leaving his crease unless he's already intending to leave his crease and is trying to time it down to the second as you run in? Just don't leave your crease until the ball is actually bowled and you can't be dismissed. If the bowler wants to abort their run up over and over to try and run you out, well, there's over rate requirements for a reason. I just don't see it ever being an actual issue aside from when batsmen don't think they can be dismissed that way and thus push the boundaries egregiously.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

But batsmen should be trying to time leaving the crease to the optimal point - yes, not leaving the crease before hand, but timing it to leave at the optimal stage. Sleight of hand equivalent by the bowler could ensure the optimal strategy becomes a mankad opportunity when with a normal action it wouldn't have been. Your premise assumes that a batsman should accept taking a sub-optimal approach so to avoid the potential of a mankad. Perhaps this would hold for a while, but as time passes and as you say, no Mankads are effected, the boundaries will be pushed and the scenario I outline becomes much more likely.

 

[MrPrez]

1. Beamers aren't always mistakes
2. Leaving your crease 1/24th of a second early can be a mistake.

You're making a lot of assumptions for someone who admits to not have seen the dismissal. He was a couple of mm out of his ground a fraction of a second early; this isn't the Buttler case where he was yards down the pitch, flagrantly stealing metres, when Senenayake knocked the bails off.

Hence me making an additional post addressing this particular situation afterwards...

But regarding your points,

Beamers are potential unavoidable. Yes, beamers can be purposeful, hence the rule of taking the bowler out after the second. But the precise reasoning for giving a warning with beamers, rather than immediately removing the bowler, is because beamers are potentially genuine, unavoidable mistakes.

There is no case where the non-striker can't prevent themselves from leaving the crease early. Hence them being incomparable.

 

[Daemon]

Heef is right. There will definitely be idiots who will slow down in their run up to ensure the batsmen leaves the crease just that bit early (which is more than enough as we saw in the most recent case). Over time the boundaries will be pushed and we'll have ourselves a brand new problem.

 

[Jono]

I'm okay with mankadding. Particularly in indoor cricket.

Top Cat agrees with me.

 

[Top_Cat]

I am absolutely in agreement that the majestic **** above is okay with the Mankad.

 

[nick-o]

...
2) Mankading is outlawed as a dismissal but batsmen starting off early get one run short. I prefer this solution but there's fat chance of this happening since in this day and age, the front foot line may as well not exist for the on field umpire. If they're not calling no-balls, they sure as hell won't bother calling a one short. In fairness, it's probably not feasible to ask an impure to look at the bowlers landing foot, and the non striker AND judge any decision against the batsman at the strikers end a split second later.

...

But what happens if there aren't any impures at hand to ask? And who gets to define who's impure and who isn't? I think this idea raises more problems than it solves.

 

[juro]

How is the mankad bad for cricket? The only negative I see is that it would slow down the over rate marginally. To discourage the bowler from attempting one, I'd be happy for the attempt to also be a no-ball.

 

[social]

In one of my first games of cricket (about 10 I think), I mankaded a batsman who was miles out of his crease chasing butterflies or whatever else you do at that age

Our coach/umpire/father of one of the kids was a former state player and he gave me an absolute gobful resulting in both me and the batsman ending up in tears

To this day, I have no idea what he was so upset about

 

[kiwiviktor81]

As a No. 8 or 9 batsman who always came in when the slog was on, and a really slow runner that needed every inch he could get, I lived in perpetual fear of the Mankad.

It definitely should not be outlawed though. Wasn't there a system where there had to be one mankad attempt first and that served as a warning? Or did they get rid of that?

 

[weldone]

I don't think the 'penalty run' proposal is a good one. In that case, a team batting last won't win the match even after crossing the other team's score because even after that their score may decrease due to Mankads.

 

[91Jmay]

as a no. 8 or 9 batsman who always came in when the slog was on, and a really slow runner that needed every inch he could get, i lived in perpetual fear of the mankad.

It definitely should not be outlawed though. Wasn't there a system where there had to be one mankad attempt first and that served as a warning? Or did they get rid of that?

itstl

 

[GIMH]

I don't think the 'penalty run' proposal is a good one. In that case, a team batting last won't win the match even after crossing the other team's score because even after that their score may decrease due to Mankads.

Would presumably be an at the time thing

 

[Burgey]

Does anyone who saw this dismissal think the young zimbob fella was attempting to leave his crease early? I actually didn't get that impression at all tbh.

I wouldn't have a problem with a bloke running out a batsman where he's sprinting off down the deck. I kind of do in a situation like this though, where the bowler has slowed down and the batsman has done nowt more than back up as he normally would had the bowler delivered the ball.

And that's the problem with the whole Mankad thing IMO. It's a rule which sort of brings in an element of context to me rather than being a straight forward issue.

If you're batting, you usually time your backing up to coincide with the bowler's usual release of the ball, unless of course the batsman is really trying to steal an advantage. Keep in mind, the Mankad happens behind a batsman's back, too. I can understand the pov which says just stay in your crease, but by the same token I think the young bloke was pretty much doing just that, only the bowler here slowed down to get him to move out of his crease.

It's a pretty tough area of the game IMO

 

[Furball]

Unsuccessful mankading attempts should be no balls, with a free hit awarded in LO stuff.

 

[Marius]

It shouldn't be banned.

It is probably not within the spirit of the game, but is certainly within the laws.

And batsmen shouldn't steal ground - then nobody will ever get mankaded (mancaught?).