The mankad- what's the problem?

[Burgey]

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.

Never mind Weldone (no one ever does), Ashwin should be apologizing.

 

[Arachnodouche]

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

You wouldn't hear a peep out of me tbh

 

[h_hurricane]

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

He was out of the crease though.

 

[Burgey]

He was out of the crease when Ashwin was at the point where he'd normally be following through and his bowling arm at about his front thigh. At the point where Ashwin normally releases the ball he was a mile in his crease. Dog act. Woeful.

 

[Dendarii]

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.

There always seems to be people speaking out against a Mankad when it happens, which suggests there are still many who aren't in favour of the notion, but then again I suppose anyone writing an article about the dismissal is going to go looking for comments criticising it. But that's the Mankad in general as I would agree that fake outs shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

I actually hate it when it happens, but I'm okay with it as a way to stop non-strikers essentially cheating. I actually feel exactly the same way about run-outs -- I usually find they're (subjectively anyway) pretty **** cricket, especially since I don't really enjoy great ground fielding as a spectator, but they're a necessary evil to stop batsmen taking half-runs all the time.

Opposition to mankadding in general is every bit as silly as opposition to run outs in general IMO, but "mankadding in general" and "bowlers pausing in their run ups to catch non-strikers out" are pretty different concepts for mine. It's not indoor.

 

[stephen]

I feel dirty agreeing with kilowatt on basically anything, but he's right. Well his first sentence at least.

Mankading is fine, within the spirit of cricket (although I'm reconsidering that given that the spirit of cricket in limited overs matches appears to be to Dick the bowler in every way possible) and most of all Simon Taufel said it was fine. If the world's best umpire says so then it's probably right.

 

[Top_Cat]

tbh, the average Mankad doesn't come out of nowhere. Usually there's chat behind the scenes that some batsman is pushing the line so someone takes it upon themselves to make a point. That's more what he was doing by delaying it and making sure Buttler got a good look at him before whipping off the bails, I reckon.

It's not something you wish to encourage widely but I don't agree with any slippery slope fears, personally.

 

[mr_mister]

I reckon the look he gave Butler/moment of hesitation was pure guilt lol

 

[TheJediBrah]

No problem with Mankading as the rules allow IMO. But since we're still talking about Ashwin/Buttler, thought I'd reiterate that the incident was not mankading as the rules allow. Pausing and waiting for the batsman to leave the crease is not mankading. Baffles me that people are still insisting that Buttler was in the wrong and that the dismissal was within the rules.

 

[Kilowatt]

I feel dirty agreeing with kilowatt on basically anything, but he's right. Well his first sentence at least.

Good for you. But you can remove the 'at least' bit.

Cue outright lying.

He was out of the crease when Ashwin was at the point where he'd normally be following through and his bowling arm at about his front thigh. At the point where Ashwin normally releases the ball he was a mile in his crease. Dog act. Woeful.

Side by side comparison of the first and last ball bowled by Ashwin that day.

Note: Buttler is out of his crease in the Rahane dismissal ball as well. As he was several times throughout that very match.

Same over as the Mankad

Ashwin was fully justified in premeditating Buttler being a wanker (and as the 1st image shows he was).

My opinion of Ashwin had really fallen by his insufferable narcissistic behavior and that silly 'feud' with Gibbs, but he has redeemed it this IPL despite the rest of his team being rubbish. He has always led from the front with his own performances, taken bold decisions when he needed to and didn't back down once.

 

[MrPrez]

Good for you. But you can remove the 'at least' bit.

Cue outright lying.

Side by side comparison of the first and last ball bowled by Ashwin that day.

Note: Buttler is out of his crease in the Rahane dismissal ball as well. As he was several times throughout that very match.

Same over as the Mankad

Ashwin was fully justified in premeditating Buttler being a wanker (and as the 1st image shows he was).

My opinion of Ashwin had really fallen by his insufferable narcissistic behavior and that silly 'feud' with Gibbs, but he has redeemed it this IPL despite the rest of his team being rubbish. He has always led from the front with his own performances, taken bold decisions when he needed to and didn't back down once.

Yes, Buttler is a tremendous wanker for being, what, a few mm out of his crease at the actual point of release. These images don't help Ashwin's case at all. Each time he is well into his action and Buttler has barely left his crease.

 

[Kilowatt]

Yes, Buttler is a tremendous wanker for being, what, a few mm out of his crease at the actual point of release. These images don't help Ashwin's case at all. Each time he is well into his action and Buttler has barely left his crease.

Ashwin has already won the case. Butler was deemed OUT. KXIP won.

As for the 'barely out of his crease' plea, someone has already posted this image I believe

 

[mr_mister]

The ICC literally said the wrong decision was made

 

[Burgey]

This is junk posting from Kilowatt. The bloke was in his crease, the bowler faked delivering the ball, paused and then at a point miles after the time he'd normally deliver, he runs the bloke out.

Seriously, bloke deserves a time machine back to 74-75 to face Thommo at the Gabba sans protective gear. He's trash.

 

[Borges]

It is not as clear cut as the vociferous opinions from either camp would suggest:

The umpires on the field and the third umpire felt that what Ashwin did was within the spirit of the game and ruled Buttler out.
The MCC first thought the same, but then thought some more and changed their mind.
Simon Taufel is convinced that Aswin is being vilified in an 'incredibly unfair' manner.

In any case, the question raised in the thread is more general: it is about Mankading in general, and not about just this specific incident.

 

[the big bambino]

As an aside does anyone reckon its weird the non striker is looking at the striking batsmen instead of the bowler? Both the pink guy and the yellow guy. It looks even stranger in the context of a limited over match where you have to be on the look out for quick runs and the consequential threat of a mankad. There's no way a non striker can reliably know his bat remains behind the crease from that vantage. Whereas if he was looking at the bowler side on he could place his bat behind the crease and watch the bowler deliver the ball until release. Then he can wander down the wicket after the ball is let go.

 

[MrPrez]

Ashwin has already won the case. Butler was deemed OUT. KXIP won.

Doesn't meant the right decision was made.

As for the 'barely out of his crease' plea, someone has already posted this image I believe

I don't get why people keep showing this. This just means that the CSK batsman played slightly on the safe side. As far as I'm concerned, Buttler's backing up in the previous pictures you posted is perfectly fine. So the fact that the CSK guy was more cautious than Buttler is irrelevant.

The law states the batsman can leave his crease at the point at which the bowler would be expected to deliver the ball. That is the point at which each scenario is pictured, as well as the point that Buttler is leaving the crease.

Besides, those deliveries are irrelevant to the actual scenario that took place with the dismissal delivery. It's one thing to keep an eye out if you think the batsman is stealing runs; the dismissal wasn't one of those cases - Buttler was still in his crease when Ashwin pulled out of the delivery.

 

[Kilowatt]

As an aside does anyone reckon its weird the non striker is looking at the striking batsmen instead of the bowler? Both the pink guy and the yellow guy. It looks even stranger in the context of a limited over match where you have to be on the look out for quick runs and the consequential threat of a mankad. There's no way a non striker can reliably know his bat remains behind the crease from that vantage. Whereas if he was looking at the bowler side on he could place his bat behind the crease and watch the bowler deliver the ball until release. Then he can wander down the wicket after the ball is let go.

Yes exactly.

Just don't leave the crease until the ball has been bowled. Every time you do that, you are stealing an advantage whether it be yards, inches, centimeters or mm's for they can make a big difference to the result. That is the thinh that is in fact against the spirit of the game.

 

[Starfighter]

Yes exactly.

Just don't leave the crease until the ball has been bowled. Every time you do that, you are stealing an advantage whether it be yards, inches, centimeters or mm's for they can make a big difference to the result. That is the thinh that is in fact against the spirit of the game.

No one has sympathy with a bowler who has his foot half a centimetre over the crease, or a batsman half a centimetre out of his ground when stumped. The rule on leaving your crease is just as clear cut, and the fact it's easy to do doesn't make it more legal.

The law states the batsman can leave his crease at the point at which the bowler would be expected to deliver the ball. That is the point at which each scenario is pictured, as well as the point that Buttler is leaving the crease.

Nah. If he's out of the crease in those pictures, which he is, he must have left the crease at an earlier stage, i.e. in breach of the rules.