The Mankad

[jimmy101]

I remember a few years ago a brawl almost broke out at Action Indoor sports over a Mankad during a game of Indoor. Some people really, really don't like it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

"A non-striker who is out of his crease before the point of release is either taking an advantage or is acting carelessly, and runs the risk of being legitimately run out" according to the WCC. Seems like the onus is on the non-striker.

Nah

Law 41.16: “If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be run out.”

It's specifically worded that way so that the bowler can't pretend to be bowling and wait for the batsman to leave the crease

 

[OverratedSanity]

None of the laws mention the timing of these particular actions, therefore they must refer to the physical occurrence of them, 'expected release point' referring to a point at which the bowler, having gone through his run-up and going through his bowling action, would normal release the ball rather than retaining a hold of it.

The laws do not in any way state, "where the batsman has made a mental calculation as to when these actions would have occurred".

This part seems contradictory

 

[jimmy101]

Nah

Law 41.16: “If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be run out.”

It's specifically worded that way so that the bowler can't pretend to be bowling and wait for the batsman to leave the crease

So in that case would that effectively make a "fake out" illegal? Or at the very least a dead ball?

 

[TheJediBrah]

So in that case would that effectively make a "fake out" illegal? Or at the very least a dead ball?

Yes which we have mentioned quite a few times in this thread. The discussion is that some people think the law should be changed to make the "fake out" legal, and they clearly haven't thought out the consequences.

 

[jimmy101]

As NotMcK said the umpire probably needs more power in situations like this. It's probably one of the most clouded rules in all of cricket. An "official warning" made by the umpire in the event of repeated instances of a non-striker backing up before the bowler has released the ball would at least remove some of the grey area. Tough one though, as I don't know if a non-striker should necessarily be penalised for doing this. It's risky business.

 

[TheJediBrah]

As NotMcK said the umpire probably needs more power in situations like this. It's probably one of the most clouded rules in all of cricket. An "official warning" made by the umpire in the event of repeated instances of a non-striker backing up before the bowler has released the ball would at least remove some of the grey area. Tough one though, as I don't know if a non-striker should necessarily be penalised for doing this. It's risky business.

You can still just Mankad the batsman if he's leaving his crease early though. That's in the rules. The main discussion here is about Mankading the batsman when he's not leaving the crease early.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

This part seems contradictory

It isn't. What the people who dislike running out the non-striker always defend, inadvertently or not, are batsmen like Jos Buttler who turn their back on the bowler—often before the latter has entered his delivery stride—and begin wandering up the pitch because they have made a calculation or an assumption that by the time they pull their bat out of the crease, they will be safe. If anyone watches the bowler, they will see them swing their arm round to a point in space (and therefore by physics, time) where they will—normally—let the ball go rather than keeping a hold on it. Supposing one comes in and bowls with a completely different bowling action and style, the expected point of release may change, but I, the non striker or whoever, can still find it by watching the bowler: if I turn my back on him and just make an assumption, that is not the bowler doing something after his expected point of release, that is just me being inattentive.

As I said in the IPL thread:

Not really, as ['expected point of release'] is an expectation independent of one's position as a non-striker, striker, umpire, fielder, spectator, match referee, ball-boy, groundsman, commentator, Trent Copeland, scoreboard operator, server at the pizza stand, janitor, etc.

More clearly, [the law] does not say, "from the point where the batsman assumes that the bowler, who having not actually started the swing of his arm, will begin to do so and therefore bring the ball to the point where it can be expected to be released."

 

[NotMcKenzie]

You can still just Mankad the batsman if he's leaving his crease early though. That's in the rules. The main discussion here is about Mankading the batsman when he's not leaving the crease early.

And by the laws, leaving the crease early is defined as anywhere up to the expected point of release, which by my interpretation given no reference to timing or anything in the laws, means when the ball has been moved by the bowler to that particular point.

 

[harsh.ag]

Comes down to whose POV is taken as the determining one with respect to the expectation of the ball being released. Some think it should be an objective, third party's POV such as the third umpire looking at a replay, some think the bowler's, and some think the non-striker's. I personally think the third umpire should take into account the non-striker's expectation first and foremost and then see if it was a reasonable expectation or not. Doubt should go in favour of the non-striker. But I can see why people would disagree.

And definitely agreed that it should be penalized via runs rather than a wicket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And by the laws, leaving the crease early is defined as anywhere up to the expected point of release, which by my interpretation given no reference to timing or anything in the laws, means when the ball has been moved by the bowler to that particular point.

That's a complete contradiction. Of course "expected point of release" is referring to the timing. I can see how it could be interpreted as a physical "point of release" purely by the wording (is that what you're suggesting?) but in the context of the game of cricket, it clearly is referring to the point in time that the ball is expected to be released.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

That's a complete contradiction. Of course "expected point of release" is referring to the timing. I can see how it could be interpreted as a physical "point of release" purely by the wording (is that what you're suggesting?) but in the context of the game of cricket, it clearly is referring to the point in time that the ball is expected to be released.

Problem with it being purely a point in time is that if I, as non-striker or anyone else, count five seconds between the commencement of run up [which, under the laws, marks the instant of the ball coming into play] and release, and the bowler instead dawdles and uses a slower arm action and takes seven seconds, I would be expecting him to release the ball far earlier than he actually would; therefore, under such an interpretation, he could not run me out after five seconds have elapsed.

A big issue is that terms such as 'when', 'instant', 'point', etc. that are used in the laws do not necessarily unambiguously refer to points in time without reference to physical actions, and the big dispute here appears to be how these instants are defined or generalised.

I believe that the best interpretation is to take things in a ball-by-ball manner, the instant being the time at which one sees the hand reach a position at which one would expect that bowler to let go of the ball (defining both time and space simultaneously), otherwise variations in action, arm-speed, run-up etc. if performed by a single bowler would affect their chances of getting a run out.
I do not think it's right to say that because one could extrapolate to or assume an expected timing of release based on when one last looked without the hand actually getting there, the non-striker should not be run out if the bowler swings his hand into the bails rather than round and over his head.

 

[honestbharani]

Look, I'm not going to cop advice on posting standards and sensitivity from you of all people.

But just to be clear, if the bowler goes past the point where he normally releases the ball, and the batsman moves out of his crease, you're fine with a run out being effected?

I know, it makes too much sense for you to listen to reason when it comes to posting in such threads.

There is no such thing as a point where a bowler normally releases a ball, that is the whole freaking point here. Bowlers are allowed to pause at delivery stride. Bowlers are allowed to load up differently if they want to for each delivery and bowlers can change from where they deliver the ball any time they want during delivery stride as long as they are within the crease. The law is ambiguous as it does not state what "expected point of release" really means. It will just make life so much easier for everyone if it can be rewritten to "until the ball leaves the bowlers' hands fully".

That's a complete contradiction. Of course "expected point of release" is referring to the timing. I can see how it could be interpreted as a physical "point of release" purely by the wording (is that what you're suggesting?) but in the context of the game of cricket, it clearly is referring to the point in time that the ball is expected to be released.

Its not always a point in time, juz read above.

 

[Burgey]

Your proposed change won't help because then the bowler can fail to release the ball and run the batsman out even though he was in his ground at the point where the bowler normally releases the ball. The rest of your post is typical gobbledygook, mate. Of course blokes have a normal release point. Bowlers don't, for example, generally release the ball at the point where their bowling arm is past perpendicular and down in front past their shoulder, because otherwise the ball would hit their own toe (save that little fella who bowls side atm, and even he has a normal release point).

 

[TheJediBrah]

Problem with it being purely a point in time is that if I, as non-striker or anyone else, count five seconds between the commencement of run up [which, under the laws, marks the instant of the ball coming into play] and release, and the bowler instead dawdles and uses a slower arm action and takes seven seconds, I would be expecting him to release the ball far earlier than he actually would; therefore, under such an interpretation, he could not run me out after five seconds have elapsed.

A big issue is that terms such as 'when', 'instant', 'point', etc. that are used in the laws do not necessarily unambiguously refer to points in time without reference to physical actions, and the big dispute here appears to be how these instants are defined or generalised.

I believe that the best interpretation is to take things in a ball-by-ball manner, the instant being the time at which one sees the hand reach a position at which one would expect that bowler to let go of the ball (defining both time and space simultaneously), otherwise variations in action, arm-speed, run-up etc. if performed by a single bowler would affect their chances of getting a run out.
I do not think it's right to say that because one could extrapolate to or assume an expected timing of release based on when one last looked without the hand actually getting there, the non-striker should not be run out if the bowler swings his hand into the bails rather than round and over his head.

You are overthinking it massively and confusing matters. I understand that you're trying to analyse what to do if such a situation was taken to an umpire to adjudicate, and that's fair, but IMO it's not necessary, practically speaking. I'm not even sure what your point is anymore.

 

[cnerd123]

So when we (umpires) were taught how to interpret and apply this law, our ICC-qualified instructor talked about how the 'expected' point of release for a bowler can vary ball to ball. A legspinner isn't releasing his legbreak at the same point in his action as he would the googly. Bowlers change their pace by varying their arm speed. A bouncer is release later than a yorker. Etc etc.

He said that umpires are not expected to focus on minutiae like that, and to do so is to miss the whole point of the Law. All you need to remember is that the bowler can not run out the non striker once his delivery stride is finished. That's the essence of it. It is worded in this way to prevent situations where a bowler completes his action, holds on to the ball, and then tries to run-out the non striker. That is not-out, and the wording of the law makes this clear. However, if at any other point in the bowler's action the non striker is caught out of the crease, then he is liable to be run out. It's the umpire's judgement call on whether or not a bowler has held onto the ball well beyond what is reasonable in order to trick a batsman. If the umpire feels that is the case, then it's not out.

It's pretty simple actually.

Yes there is always going to be disagreement on some decisions, just like there will be in cases where an umpire is trying to determine whether or not a batsman played a shot/was taking evasive action, or whether or not a batsman was obstructing the field, or a fielder was attempting fake fielding. There will never be a black and white definition, and sometimes umpires will get it wrong. But this is not new to cricket, and any bowler/fielding team that dedicates a significant amount of time in a match trying to game this law will be pulled up and penalised for time wasting, and will probably cop a code of conduct violation as well.

End of the day - the Mankad law is a good one. Batsmen just need to wait for the ball to be release before starting a run at the non strikers end. Simple.

 

[TheJediBrah]

End of the day - the Mankad law is a good one. Batsmen just need to wait for the ball to be release before starting a run at the non strikers end. Simple.

lol not simple though because that's the whole thing we've been arguing about. Actually released or "would normally have been expected to release the ball".

 

[cnerd123]

play dumb games win dumb prizes

 

[Raghav]

If a bowler is penalized for overstepping the bowling crease for a no-ball even for smallest of margins, why is it unfair to dismiss the batsman for crossing the same line before the delivery is bowled.

 

[honestbharani]

Your proposed change won't help because then the bowler can fail to release the ball and run the batsman out even though he was in his ground at the point where the bowler normally releases the ball. The rest of your post is typical gobbledygook, mate. Of course blokes have a normal release point. Bowlers don't, for example, generally release the ball at the point where their bowling arm is past perpendicular and down in front past their shoulder, because otherwise the ball would hit their own toe (save that little fella who bowls side atm, and even he has a normal release point).

I wish your posts made as much sense as gobbledygook, mate... Bowlers have a point in their action where they release the ball, sure. But it need not be at the exact same time interval everytime. And none of these run outs (the windies u19 one, the recent u19 one and Buttler's run out in IPL) happened at that point and neither did the bowler deliberately take his arm to that level and then bring it back to do the run out. Also, the point at which they release a ball maybe physically constant but not time-wise. They can delay and pause in their delivery stride if they want and they can change the speed at which they go through their delivery stride too. So it is up to the non-striker to be sure when he wants to move out of the crease, knowing fully well he can be run out if he moves too early. It's that simple.