Mankad: Fair game or poor form?

Mankad

  • Within the spirit - with a warning

    Votes: 73 51.8%
  • Within the spirit - without a warning

    Votes: 52 36.9%
  • Not in the spirit in any case

    Votes: 16 11.3%

  • Total voters
    141
Oct 19, 2009
48
0
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
What constitutes as being in your delivery stride in this situation? Here it appears that Senanayake finished his run up and reached the crease, but not rolled the arm over
 
Jul 12, 2004
59,815
15,682
Junktion Oval
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
England
What constitutes as being in your delivery stride in this situation? Here it appears that Senanayake finished his run up and reached the crease, but not rolled the arm over

Exactly my thoughts also, he is pretty much at the crease at the same time as Butler who has his eyes down the pitch and is just slowly taking a few steps, but its the sort of stuff you expect from Sri Lanka and its funny it happened by a bowler who has no issue chucking it...
 

hcd199

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2009
2,376
2,556
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
Much like the advocates for removing the front-foot no ball rule, the idea that this rule should be removed is ridiculous - it essentially permits the batsmen to cheat and gives the bowler no means of combatting the transgression. I think it's best for the courtesy of the warning to remain, although I wouldn't consider it wholly against the spirit of the game to run out the non-striker without one - after all, it's the non-striker who opens himself up by leaving his crease. Absolutely no issue with Senanayake's actions.
 
Jul 12, 2004
59,815
15,682
Junktion Oval
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
England
Much like the advocates for removing the front-foot no ball rule, the idea that this rule should be removed is ridiculous - it essentially permits the batsmen to cheat and gives the bowler no means of combatting the transgression. I think it's best for the courtesy of the warning to remain, although I wouldn't consider it wholly against the spirit of the game to run out the non-striker without one - after all, it's the non-striker who opens himself up by leaving his crease. Absolutely no issue with Senanayake's actions.

In this scenario surely its more the bowler cheating in that he stops in the middle of his delivery to run out the batsman who is simply walking with him, its not like those batsmen late in a tight game who are sprinting as the bowler walks in
 

hcd199

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2009
2,376
2,556
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
In this scenario surely its more the bowler cheating in that he stops in the middle of his delivery to run out the batsman who is simply walking with him, its not like those batsmen late in a tight game who are sprinting as the bowler walks in

If the batsman is out of his crease prior to the delivery of the ball, then he's liable to be run out - just because players are accustomed, and indeed encouraged, to walk in with the bowler, doesn't make him immune. Again, it's very similar to the front-foot no-ball rule - it's not about whether your intent is to gain an unfair advantage, simply about whether you do (and if you're out of your crease and thus shortening your running distance before the ball is released, then you absolutely do). Whether Senanayake was in his delivery stride at the time is another matter.
 

Philler

Debutant
Mar 4, 2014
140
350
AFL Club
Geelong
The delivery stride is an MCC rule, not the international ICC rule. In internationals the non-striker can only move out of his crease during the bowler's arm swing. Senanayake didn't swing his arm to bowl the ball so he's perfectly within his rights to run Buttler out.

Law 42.15 – Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
law 42.15 shall be replaced by the following:
the bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he
has not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the
non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not
count as one of the over. if the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the
non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal dead ball as soon possible.

There's nothing about warning the batsmen either he can just run him out. He gave him two chances as a courtesy but he still persisted so what exactly were Sri Lanka suppose to do?
 
I'm not usually a fan of the mankad, but after two warnings it's the batsmans fault.

Yep, totally agree with this train of thought. If Senanayake was to do it without prior warning then that'd be fairly poor sportsmanship you'd think, but multiple warnings (to both batsman at the time) means it's fair play imo.

Of course England are going to kick up a stink about it but I'm sure Matthews would have known that.
 
I don't think a warning should even be given. He shouldn't be out of his crease until the bowler has let go of the ball. They they allow this to go on, the non-striker can essentially run up to the strikers end before the bowler has bowl. The striker isn't given a warning when they are stumped by the wicket keeper, so I don't think it should differ for the non-striker. It's in the rules that this isn't allowed, so why do people keep doing it, and getting away with it.
 
Aug 6, 2008
2,815
86
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Do not really have a issue it. Funny its England complaining about the spirit when they just poached the Sri Lankan head coach before the series.

Perhaps umpires should start calling it a run "short" everytime a batsman does it. Will stop them doing it quite quickly.
 
In this scenario surely its more the bowler cheating in that he stops in the middle of his delivery to run out the batsman who is simply walking with him, its not like those batsmen late in a tight game who are sprinting as the bowler walks in
It's actually not that difficult as a non striker to leave the protection of the crease as the ball leaves the bowler's hand.
 
Oct 5, 2004
17,856
9,640
Geelong
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
I'm not against it but not without a warning.

At the same time I don't mind the odd Mankad as batsmen tend to take alot of liberties thinking it will never happen. At least the odd one keep it in the batman's mind and makes him think twice before pinching a metre or two.
 
WTF is this "warning" bullshit anyway? Does the batsman give a warning that he's going to run halfway down the pitch before the bowler's even released the ball?

Bowlers can't bowl as many bouncers as they want. They can't do anything to the ball. They can't bowl 1mm outside leg stump in Limited Over cricket. Now one runs a batsman out who's out of his crease and it's the end of the world as we know it? Christ batsmen are sooks.
 
i've got no issue with it either, if the bowler can spot you in his run up, pull out (admittedly, much easier for a spinner) and whip the bails off, all while the non striker is traipsing around expecting to get away with it out of his ground he's fair game, especially after a warning.
 
Sep 30, 2008
14,335
17,806
Western Victoria
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
My undestanding of the rule is that it has to be done before he enters his delivery stride - I would argue that in this case the bowler had entered it and therefore Butler was entitled to do what he did and should have been given not out as a result.
 
My undestanding of the rule is that it has to be done before he enters his delivery stride - I would argue that in this case the bowler had entered it and therefore Butler was entitled to do what he did and should have been given not out as a result.

I think there are two sets of rules here WRB - the MCC say that it's before the delivery stride while the ICC say that it can be done before the 'delivery swing'.
 
I don't think what happened was against the spirit of the rules.

Since the original - the spirit has been you give a warning.

However the dismissal may have been against the rules. Having rewatched it - the bowlers back foot hits the ground and Butler is still within the crease.

That is the start of the delivery stride and as such the umpire was incorrect in giving him out.

However the bowler wasn't to know that and having warned the batsmen, was within his rights to appeal (both within the spirit and the rules)

The ump simply cocked up
 

Philler

Debutant
Mar 4, 2014
140
350
AFL Club
Geelong
I don't think what happened was against the spirit of the rules.

Since the original - the spirit has been you give a warning.

However the dismissal may have been against the rules. Having rewatched it - the bowlers back foot hits the ground and Butler is still within the crease.

That is the start of the delivery stride and as such the umpire was incorrect in giving him out.

However the bowler wasn't to know that and having warned the batsmen, was within his rights to appeal (both within the spirit and the rules)

The ump simply cocked up


Law 42.15 – Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
law 42.15 shall be replaced by the following:
the bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he
has not completed his usual delivery swing
, to attempt to run out the
non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not
count as one of the over. if the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the
non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal dead ball as soon possible.
 
Back