Poor form without a warning.
I'm ok with it if the batsman has already been warned.
I'm ok with it if the batsman has already been warned.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
I agree with this. This situation shows that Ashwin has no intention of bowling the ball. I think stipulation needs to be added, wherein the batsman must have left the crease at the time the front foot has been planted for the dismissal to occur. Not saying the batsman can leave the crease after the bowler has planted his foot and not be run out.I agree with that....what I do not agree with in this case....is that there was no intention of bowling the ball …
it was all about stopping tricking the batsmen and waiting for him to leave the crease
Under the new law, the batter could be run-out up to “the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball”.
“Normally have been expected to release the ball” – it is within those eight words that the real debate exists.
This to me is the issue...which I honestly believe Ashwin exploited
I don't think so. The batsman could watch the bowler until he releases the ball - and then leave his crease. Pretty simple.
It's funny how we castigate batsmen for 'turning blind' - ie, setting off for a run without checking whether the fielder has gathered, released or fumbled the ball. But we let them off for guessing when or if the bowler releases the ball - while bowling.
I wouldn't object to seeing one or two mankads in a series. Keep the batsmen on their toes. The ball is live from the moment the bowler begins his runup.
This is what I was trying to say earlier, was it the correct decision? Seems we still don't know. Personally I agree that the whole 'warning' thing is ridiculous and belongs back in the days of amateurism, but I don't like the idea of bowlers tricking batsmen into walking out of their crease, as appears to me to be what happened here, but if a bloke is wandering down the pitch as you're still coming into bowl he's fair game I reckon.https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...l/news-story/9210a3c97801ddba98e3c9a5e12380b6
From the MCC
50/50 the rule needs to be looked at
Why not just specify "the non-striker is able to be dismissed run out if they are out of their crease and the bowler breaks the wicket at the non-strikers end at any time when the ball is in play." (In play is defined in 20.5 as being when the bowler starts their run-up.)I agree with this. This situation shows that Ashwin has no intention of bowling the ball. I think stipulation needs to be added, wherein the batsman must have left the crease at the time the front foot has been planted for the dismissal to occur. Not saying the batsman can leave the crease after the bowler has planted his foot and not be run out.
But then you would have to look into where Ashwin stopped and turned towards the stumps.
It really does sound like a form of dismissal that fits hand in glove with the T20 format
I think we're still looking at this through a test match lens, when T20 cricket is very different and those inches matterFrom a purely personal pov, I wouldn't mind a player from my side getting mankaded in a T20 game but would absolutely hate it happening in the longer formats especially test cricket.
Rules say the ball is in play from the moment the bowler starts their run-up: https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/dead-ballA lot of people feel mankad is not in the spirit of the game because the ball is not in action yet and hence feel it's not a way they would like to get a wicket from.
Rules say the ball is in play from the moment the bowler starts their run-up: https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/dead-ball
20.5 Ball ceases to be dead
The ball ceases to be dead – that is, it comes into play – when the bowler starts his/her run-up or, if there is no run-up, starts his/her bowling action.
How is a batsmen not stretching the rules if they are a foot outside the crease? If they take a quick single and the batsmen makes it by a couple of inches, then he has only survived because he started his run a foot further down the wicket than he should have.Basically I don't want to see players out to a mankad when they're a foot outside the crease or their bat is in the crease. They're hardly stretching the rules or attempting to steal a run. Something like this I would have a problem with:
Good blokes vs unlikeable Indians.Should only be given out if the batsman is trying to get an advantage which I don’t believe Buttler was. Poor sportsmanship once again from a member of an Indian team that is becoming more and more unlikeable. How this team went from Tendulkar, Dravid and Sehwag to Kohli and Ashwin is very sad imo. Gentlemen to absolute flogs in a reasonably short period of time.
Perhaps a change in law so this dismissal isn’t a run out. If handling the ball could be changed to obstructing the field so can this. If this law change is made the umpires can deem the batsman is trying to gain unfair advantage and gives the decision accordingly.
Buttler seems like a good bloke imo and is very much not in the wrong here. If Ashwin had actually bowled the ball it’s debatable whether Buttler would’ve been out of his ground when Ashwin realised the ball.
Good blokes vs unlikeable Indians.
Was wondering when it would get to this.
How is a batsmen not stretching the rules if they are a foot outside the crease? If they take a quick single and the batsmen makes it by a couple of inches, then he has only survived because he started his run a foot further down the wicket than he should have.
In the latest mankad controversy Buttler should have been not out and dead ball called, but Ashwin is still within his rights to ask the question if he thinks the batsmen has been stealing some ground. No different to a keeper whipping the bails off when a batsmen looks like they may have over balanced.
No doubt Ashwin was being very crafty and opened himself up to criticism of gamesmanship, but there still has to be some responsibility on the batsmen to keep their eye on the ball. Batsmen have been getting away with starting down the pitch for decades, and it's only in the last decade they have been pulled into line a bit as bowlers are less reluctant to go down the mankad route. Go back to cricket video's of the 90s and earlier when mankading was pretty much taboo and batsmen are regularly a metre or more out of their crease when the bowler lets go of the ball.
The rule is a bit vague. "When the bowler would be expected to deliver the ball" is pretty hard to judge without the use of superimposed video.
I have no problems with people talking about the spirit of the game, but it seems to me the "spirit of the game" almost always fall back on the bowler, and rarely - if ever - on the batsmen. The bowler hardly intended to get a massive advantage when he hits the stumps but is no-balled because he went over the popping crease by an inch. The spirit of the game says he beat the batsmen all ends up and the batsmen should walk but the rules - correctly - deny him that wicket.
I'd have no problems if the rule was changed to "Batsmen must be in their crease once the ball is in play" which in effect would make mankading and stealing ground a part of the game. Not too different really from base stealing in baseball. If a batsmen wants to try and steal a few inches, which I'd imagine is a common tactic in T20 and 50-over games, then go for it but the fielding team can run them out at any time, including after the bowler has entered his delivery stride. Obviously for quick bowler's that would be a hard skill to execute, but an easy one for spinners. OK it would slightly change the the prevailing view around mankading, but the rule is unambiguous and everyone knows the state of play.
This is even more vague than the current rule and interpretation. Would be a minefield for umpires to tread through.Should only be given out if the batsman is trying to get an advantage....
Perhaps a change in law so this dismissal isn’t a run out. If handling the ball could be changed to obstructing the field so can this. If this law change is made the umpires can deem the batsman is trying to gain unfair advantage and gives the decision accordingly.
This is even more vague than the current rule and interpretation. Would be a minefield for umpires to tread through.