The mankad- what's the problem?

[Red]

I for one have never been able to understand why mankadding someone is considered against the "spirit of the game". The batsman is out of his crease and is trying to gain an advantage. What's with the "gentlemanly" warning? Where did the whole thing come from historically? I mean, if a keeper was going to stump someone, he wouldn't give a warning first. The onus is entirely on the non-striker to be in his crease until such a time as he is safe, surely. That means when the bowler delivers the ball.

 

[andmark]

I'm under the impression that some people believe it's an obscure rule and so a warning is more polite. At village level, yeah, I can accept that (although I'd have no problem in a bowler Mankadding if it's a fully competitive match). At the professional level, the players should really know the rules of the game- especially given the number of times it's came up in recent years.

 

[Burgey]

The perception with it, I suspect, is it’s something done behind a batsman’s back. Personally don’t have a problem with it if a batsman is stealing a yard, but stuff like Ashwon’t did the other week is dross.

 

[Tom Flint]

Batsman already nick more than a yard though their often about 3 feet down the track with only their bat dangling behind keeping them in.

 

[Starfighter]

"It's a batsman's game"

 

[Burgey]

Batsman already nick more than a yard though their often about 3 feet down the track with only their bat dangling behind keeping them in.

Well unless you want to change the run out law to say you have to ground a foot behind the line instead of your bat, so we all start sliding into home plate like baseball, then you're stuck with it.

Just as a batsman shouldn't leave the crease before the point of release, imo a bowler shouldn't feign to bowl but hang onto the ball beyond the normal point of their release. That, imho, is what made Ashwin's act the other week a **** one. If a bowler has the right to presume a batsman won't leave the crease early, a batsman has the right to presume a bowler won't pretend to bowl but not release the ball. Otherwise you just end up with a scenario where a bowler tries to fake a batsman out, and the game ceases to become a contest between bat and ball.

 

[Daemon]

Exactly. We've already had a couple of numpties try it with the pause over the last few weekends. Their own captain told them to **** off.

 

[Kilowatt]

There is no problem with 'Mankad' which is simply a run out. The outrage came largely from typically biased people who felt 'their' player got clowned and have since resorted to using inverted logic and outright lies (like the user Burgey above) to defend a clear violation of rules and indeed the spirit of cricket while trashing Ashwin as a person.

 

[Burgey]

But Ashwin is a trash person, who committed a trash act largely brought about by relevance deprivation syndrome because he's gone from supposedly the world's best bowler (lol) to the Reggie Reserves for the test side. It's just a simple fact, not open to interpretation or opinion.

The batsman was well within his crease at the point where Ashwin releases the ball in the course of his normal (but questionable) action. This is not a situation where the batsman was out of his crease at the point of normal release and therefore taking liberties. The footage shows he was well within his crease. It's only that the cur Ashwin held onto the ball while mimicking his normal (but questionable) action which led to the batsman leaving his crease in the ordinary course of quite appropriately backing up.

Rubbish act. Rubbish player. Dud human.

 

[Arachnodouche]

No problem whatsoever, no matter who does it or if it's a matter of inches. Don't even care if the bowler stutters and stops in his action; the non-striker is not entitled to backing up, you know. He can take a punt and well done to him if it pays off, but stop with the complaining when caught with his pants down.

 

[ankitj]

Butler was being plain silly in that dismissal by Ashwin. He was well inside the crease when Ashwin stopped his bowling action and Butler saw Ashwin stopping. He still dragged his bat out. You act sneaky, you risk getting out. You act stupid, you risk getting out.

More power to all the bowlers who have ever Mankaded a batsman. Absolutely love it when it happens. Reactions referring to "spirit of game" make it even more delicious.

 

[Burgey]

No problem whatsoever, no matter who does it or if it's a matter of inches. Don't even care if the bowler stutters and stops in his action; the non-striker is not entitled to backing up, you know. He can take a punt and well done to him if it pays off, but stop with the complaining when caught with his pants down.

**** I can't wait til Starc Mankad's Kohli in the WC and India is bundled out as a result.

 

[h_hurricane]

The rule is there for every one to read. If a non striker backs up too far, he runs the risk of getting mankaded. This is not the first time Butler got mankaded, and rightly so. A non striker who back up gains a natural advantage and mankading rightly helps bowlers to neutralize this.

 

[h_hurricane]

**** I can't wait til Starc Mankad's Kohli in the WC and India is bundled out as a result.

Would be absolutely fair if it happens.

 

[Dendarii]

I really don't get the "spirit of the game" argument against Mankadding. Basically what those people are saying is that even though it's stipulated in the laws under what circumstances the bowler can run the non-striker out, they shouldn't do it, which is nonsense - it's either legal or not, and not this weird inbetween state. And if they want the batsman to always be warned first then that needs to go in the laws, otherwise the bowler has absolutely no obligation to do so.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Just a semi related thought, if someone was to accidentally clip the non strikers end stumps with their hand while bowling that would ordinarily be a no ball (Finn's law). But the bowler could theoretically claim it was a mankad attempt and get away with the no ball, what would happen in that case?

 

[Daemon]

Just a semi related thought, if someone was to accidentally clip the non strikers end stumps with their hand while bowling that would ordinarily be a no ball (Finn's law). But the bowler could theoretically claim it was a mankad attempt and get away with the no ball, what would happen in that case?

It's only a no-ball if he actually delivers the ball. If he delivers it then there's really no way the umpire will buy an argument that it was a legitimate attempt at mankading.

 

[Daemon]

I really don't get the "spirit of the game" argument against Mankadding. Basically what those people are saying is that even though it's stipulated in the laws under what circumstances the bowler can run the non-striker out, they shouldn't do it, which is nonsense - it's either legal or not, and not this weird inbetween state. And if they want the batsman to always be warned first then that needs to go in the laws, otherwise the bowler has absolutely no obligation to do so.

Not that many people still think it's against the spirit of the game these days. The problem people have is with the pause and the definition of when the bowler is supposedly expected to have delivered the ball.

This is not aimed at you, but MCC have come out and said it should've been not out, so I'm not sure why people are still banging on about it being out according to the laws.

Weldone also notably yet to apologise.

 

[Borges]

Just ruthlessly Mankad, without warning, every greasy slimeball who tries to cheat on running between wickets; ideally with the bowler being equally slimy in the attempt to Mankad.

And it shouldn't be any different whether it is Kohli or a rank tail ender: if you are run out, you stay run out, no matter who you are.

 

[Burgey]

The rule is there for every one to read. If a non striker backs up too far, he runs the risk of getting mankaded. This is not the first time Butler got mankaded, and rightly so. A non striker who back up gains a natural advantage and mankading rightly helps bowlers to neutralize this.

Butler. Didn't. Back. Up. Too. Far.