The Mankad

[honestbharani]

Doesn’t sound like Dhawan to mock another player on the field.

However, the fact you haven’t mentioned other players doing it means YOU’RE A MASSIE HYPOCRITE!

 

[Smudge]

Doesn’t sound like Dhawan to mock another player on the field.

However, the fact you haven’t mentioned other players doing it means YOU’RE A MASSIE HYPOCRITE!

No need to bring Bob into this.

 

[ankitj]

Bump in light of Ponting's comment about having a "hard conversation" with Ashwin on the topic.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Should have had a "hard conversation" with the umpires who erroneously gave Buttler out.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bump in light of Ponting's comment about having a "hard conversation" with Ashwin on the topic.

I'd love to invite everyone to discuss this matter over in this thread, where all the cool kids are:

Indian Cricket Dhaba

Inspired by the Kiwi thread of a similar nature produced a bit back, this a place to have a virtual tea (with a samosa perhaps) and talk about Indian cricket. If you talk bull ****, Joginder Sharma will take that up with you. Any ways, with Dhoni gone for tests, who do you guys feel should...

www.cricketweb.net

#punchathreadnazi

 

[andruid]

You can mankad me anytime

 

[honestbharani]

Dinesh Karthik: Spirit of Cricket is a grey area

"If the non-striker goes out, then the bowler can dislodge the bails," the KKR captain said

www.espncricinfo.com

This guy gets it.

 

[Line and Length]

In simple terms, a batsman who leaves the crease before the ball is delivered is doing so to gain an advantage. Is that advantage unfair? If so, why shouldn't he be open to dismissal for taking such a risk?

 

[harsh.ag]

In simple terms, a bowler who oversteps the mark before the ball is delivered is doing so to gain an advantage. Is that advantage unfair? If so, why shouldn't he be open to being restricted from bowling for the rest of the innings?

 

[ankitj]

In simple terms, a bowler who oversteps the mark before the ball is delivered is doing so to gain an advantage. Is that advantage unfair? If so, why shouldn't he be open to being restricted from bowling for the rest of the innings?

You can make the same argument against run outs. Or stumpings. Or any kind of out. Batsmen get to make one error, bowlers can make many. That's how it is in cricket.

If Mankad must be replaced with a penalty of few runs then all other forms of dismissals should be replaced with same penalty. It won't be cricket anymore though.

 

[Line and Length]

In simple terms, a bowler who oversteps the mark before the ball is delivered is doing so to gain an advantage. Is that advantage unfair? If so, why shouldn't he be open to being restricted from bowling for the rest of the innings?

There's an obvious difference which makes your argument flawed. A bowler doesn't deliberately overstep when bowling whereas backing up at the non-striker's end is a conscious and pre-meditated movement.

 

[honestbharani]

Harsh is a batsman, obviously...

 

[indiaholic]

Harsh is a lawyer who has been mankaded.

 

[Starfighter]

A bowler doesn't deliberately overstep when bowling

Mohammad Amir and Suraj Randiv would disagree.

 

[harsh.ag]

You can make the same argument against run outs. Or stumpings. Or any kind of out. Batsmen get to make one error, bowlers can make many. That's how it is in cricket.

If Mankad must be replaced with a penalty of few runs then all other forms of dismissals should be replaced with same penalty. It won't be cricket anymore though.

Nah, as I wrote in the other thread:

A run out is not the same thing because it's a fielder vs a batsman and it's a contest and skill and judgment are involved. It's what sport is all about.

Backing up too much should definitely be punished (with runs). But it's not in the same realm as a run out, sporting wise.

Same thing applies to stumping.

There's an obvious difference which makes your argument flawed. A bowler doesn't deliberately overstep when bowling whereas backing up at the non-striker's end is a conscious and pre-meditated movement.

Bowlers definitely do it deliberately. They can easily choose to bowl from a decent space behind the line. They push the line as far as possible on every delivery with full knowledge.

 

[honestbharani]

Bowlers definitely do it deliberately.

No.. They CAN do it deliberately. Doesn't mean every no ball ever bowled is deliberate, but every runner backing up outside the crease before the ball is delivered is 100% deliberate, EVERY TIME.

 

[harsh.ag]

No.. They CAN do it deliberately. Doesn't mean every no ball ever bowled is deliberate, but every runner backing up outside the crease before the ball is delivered is 100% deliberate, EVERY TIME.

If someone does something repeatedly with the knowledge that 2% of the time, X-event will happen (as known from past data), it would be wrong of them to say "it wasn't deliberate" when X-event does happen.

 

[honestbharani]

nah, come on Harsh, you are now talking as if you have never played the game. This is not an intellectual simulation, FFS. You know how it is when you are out there playing.

 

[Daemon]

No.. They CAN do it deliberately. Doesn't mean every no ball ever bowled is deliberate, but every runner backing up outside the crease before the ball is delivered is 100% deliberate, EVERY TIME.

Its pretty much always accidental

 

[harsh.ag]

nah, come on Harsh, you are now talking as if you have never played the game. This is not an intellectual simulation, FFS. You know how it is when you are out there playing.

I do know. The bowlers push the line with full knowledge. There is nothing accidental about it. They might not think in the terms I have used, but the terms accurately depict what's happening.