Mankad: Fair game or poor form?

[Modbury_Hawk_12]

The converse of that is if I play a big drive and accidentally drag my foot out of the crease, should the keeper stump me, or warn me? I wasn't trying to go out of my crease, I wasn't trying to gain an advantage - it just happened. What about the batsman run-out at the bowler's end through a deflection off the bowler - sheer fluke, the bowler wasn't trying to do it, the backer-upper wasn't trying to take a run - should that be out?

I can see your argument and I agree it's an unfortunate thing when a batsman backing up just leans out too far - but that is because we have become accustomed to batsmen 'timing' their backing-up with the bowlers delivery stride. Just wait until he's let the ball go!

It's the fun thing about sport - the rules are purely arbitrary and only meaningful in the context of the game. To argue about 'reasonableness' or 'honourable' rules doesn't really make sense if you apply normal standards to them.

I totally agree, things like saying not walking is bad is s**t. However, I think it should always be best team wins. If one of the best bats in a side can be dismissed without the bowler exerting any skill is a load of crap.

The example you use is completely different, there is no way to discern wether the run out was intentional or not, so you just have to deal with it.

Mankad is there to stop blatant cheating, if you go over by an inch then that's not cheating. Do it after a warning you're either cheating or really stupid and should be out.

 

[Wallaby]

Oh well - we agree to disagree. If a warning is required, I would go into the opposition dressing room before the start of play and say 'Anybody leaves the crease before the bowler bowls, gets run out. That's your warning'.

How do you feel if a batsman runs a quick single and ju-u-u-u-u-st makes his ground before the run-out - and you see on the replay he got a metre head start? Do you warn him then? Bad luck - too late. He got his illegal advantage and used it - whether deliberate or not.

As to a batsman being dismissed with the bowler exerting no skill - how about if the batsmen do the old 'Yes, No. Sorry' and run themselves out? That's no skill by bowler or fielder.

The trouble is there are enough journos and administrators who would make a scene if you did a Mankad in an international. There are also plenty who would congratulate the bowler and blame the batsman for being an idiot. No one really wants to cause an international incident - whether or not it's in the rules.

 

[sherb]

I think it's different because this is not a skill thing. A batsman may be able to pick the outs winger and have to play it well. A bowler may be able to hide it and then has to bowl it well. However, a mankad has no skill involved. On the first go it could simply be an honest mistake (I'm sure we've all backed up too far at some point) with no malice intended. If he does it after a warning he's probably trying to cheat and then I see it as fair game.

I am not sure what skill has to do with it.

This about the batsman seeking an advantage outside of the laws of the game, sometimes considerably so.

I agree with at least one previous poster here, leaving the crease at the bowler's end without the chance of being mankaded is a pretty simple thing to do.

It should be a piece of cake for elite cricketers.

 

[western royboy]

Agreed. I was watching a match last weekend and could not believe the number of times I saw batsmen at the non-strikers end:
1. Hold the bat in the wrong hand
2. Not watch the ball leave the bowler's hand
3. Just wander out of his ground before the bowler lets go of the ball

Slightly un-related, I am also amazed to see batsmen turning blind when running between the wickets.

For mine, the "Mankad" style run out is within the rules. I'm opposed to bowers running in pretending to bowl, and then whipping the bails off, but if the bowler is in his delivery stride and sees the batsman leave his ground, that's cheating and should be run out. A batsman should know how to back up properly, it's part of the game.

To me, warning a batsmen in a Mankad situation is the same as telling the batsman, "Next time I knock your middle stump back, you're out".

all kids do is play these days - they never have to wait learn and absorb and learn the little intricasies that make the game unique.

 

[Mateyman]

all kids do is play these days - they never have to wait learn and absorb and learn the little intricasies that make the game unique.

What does that mean?

 

[western royboy]

What does that mean?

it means exactly what it says - kids don't have to wait to get a game like they used to and in the meantime develop and learn the little things. Wayback when training was two times a week with a game on Saturday. Before you even got to that standard you had to have the basics. Junior cricket has exploded we have comps for as young as under 9. I would suggest to you that if all you ever do is play age group cricket and at best train one night a week, unless you have specialist outside coaching or a student of the game - you will have no hope of picking up things that I consider basic, such as running between the wickets. Given the limited time you have with kids, you need to practise the base skills which is batting and bowling and fielding - so you do nets, hit a few catches and a few throws into the keeper and you're done. You simply don't have time unless you are very well planned and organised.

I've been involved with cricket for over 30 years - the game at grass roots level is in severe decline - I talk to a lot of people across different spheres of the game - I'm not wrong with my assessments.

 

[akkaps]

No warning - you don't give the facing batsman a warning for being stumped, why should you be given a warning for the mankad. Aslo, with the warning, the non-striker can potentially run all the way to the other end before the ball is balled.

When I played cricket when I was young, I used to mankad the batsman all the time, I even did it to one guy twice in three balls IIRC. Still no one was given out. Yet, I get given out, when the wicketkeeper has the ball in his hands, and knocks the stumps without taking the bails off.

 

[benji2]

If Bradman said its OK when Mankad first did it, that's good enough for me. I would still give the batsman one warning.

 

[Partridge]

It was actually completely banned in my association up until this year, I heard of more than 5 happening in various grades before christmas.

One actually stopped a game for about 15 minutes while the umpires consulted the rulebook

There's the problem right there. If the umpires knew the VERY SIMPLE RULE to begin with, it wouldn't need to be banned (and it shouldn't be).

 

[Partridge]

The converse of that is if I play a big drive and accidentally drag my foot out of the crease, should the keeper stump me, or warn me? I wasn't trying to go out of my crease, I wasn't trying to gain an advantage - it just happened. What about the batsman run-out at the bowler's end through a deflection off the bowler - sheer fluke, the bowler wasn't trying to do it, the backer-upper wasn't trying to take a run - should that be out?

I'd refer to this mystical set of statutes - called the rule book - and take my cue from that.

Accordingly, if your foot dragged out a millimetre, I'd whip the bails off straight away. Same goes for a non-striker deflection. No one meant it - but it's in the rules.

I say again, if people aren't happy with it, remove it from the rulebook. Otherwise learn the goddamn rules and stop invoking wishy-washy "spirit of the game" horseshit that has never existed in the first place.

 

[western royboy]

There's the problem right there. If the umpires knew the VERY SIMPLE RULE to begin with, it wouldn't need to be banned (and it shouldn't be).

The rule has been changed at least twice in the past 12-15 years.

Up until about 2000, Mankadding was legal - but frowned upon, however if you did it with or without warning and lodged an appeal then the umpire was obliged to give you out.

My former club I think claimed the last mankad in world cricket, when in the last saturday in December before the new code came into being - our lowest grade side was involved in a tense struggle with a local team from a rural background. These blokes played hard but fair and in the spirit of the game. The father of current SA keeper Tim Ludeman was batting and looked like getting the country boys boys home. The bowler was a bit of a white line fever man - who hated losing. As he got into his delivery stride, he noticed the young fella had already set off and casually pulled up and whipped the bails off and appealed to the Ump - who correctly gave hime out. "Tinga" was incensed and went to the Captain and questioned whether he wanted to continue with the appeal - given there was no warning under the gentleman's convention - it was a young lad and he wasn't trying to steal a run he had in effect been been deceived by the trickery of the bowler. Our man - who has somewhat of a chequered history as a captain / coach / administrator - simply replied - Yep and they walked off with a three run victory.

World quickly filtered back to headquarters - and the club forefathers were not happy at winning a game in such murky circumstances as it was not done in the correct manner - in the spirit of the game etc. El Capitano was required to front the forefathers who gave him a stern dressing down and the place was on edge all night. It did nothing for the club reputation as word spread like wildfire.

The next game was the killer, when after after another tense win El Capitano began reading his Captains report at the end of play came across the assailant and mentioned that he "bowled very well" with the wound still raw a scallywag from the back of the room called out "any mankads?" - the room erupted and El Capitano threw the corebook down and marched out.

El Capitano did not react well to the enquiry - he threw the book down on the table and said "well you can all go and get ****ed then" and stormed out to his car. The Pres escorted him out - later he came back in and said to El Capitano's two sons - who had remained seated "Dad's in the care waiting for you."

Immediately after this the rule was changed and mankads were not a legitimate form of dismissal however it was reinstated under Law 42 a few years back.

The laws of cricket alone - let alone by laws introduced by associations make it difficlut for umps. We just need a simple game with simple rules - black and white - no grey.

 

[Partridge]

Immediately after this the rule was changed and mankads were not a legitimate form of dismissal however it was reinstated under Law 42 a few years back.

The laws of cricket alone - let alone by laws introduced by associations make it difficlut for umps. We just need a simple game with simple rules - black and white - no grey.

Good story, and I agree completely. If people don't like a law - then take it out. Has anyone noticed all these "gentlemen's agreements" all favour the batsmen?

 

[western royboy]

I'd refer to this mystical set of statutes - called the rule book - and take my cue from that.

Accordingly, if your foot dragged out a millimetre, I'd whip the bails off straight away. Same goes for a non-striker deflection. No one meant it - but it's in the rules.

I say again, if people aren't happy with it, remove it from the rulebook. Otherwise learn the goddamn rules and stop invoking wishy-washy "spirit of the game" horseshit that has never existed in the first place.

The spirit of the game is in the laws - it is the preamble - it has always existed in theory but in 2000 they actualy codefied it so that it forms part of the laws. http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/preamble-to-the-laws/

 

[Father Jack]

I've honestly never understood the 'warning' bit either. Once the bowler begins his run up the ball should be considered 'live' and remain so until returned to bowler/keeper or otherwise decreed by the umpire. You can take on the bowler if you want, but on your own head be it.

Doesn't matter so much in Test matches, but certainly does in the short forms.

 

[Mateyman]

it means exactly what it says - kids don't have to wait to get a game like they used to and in the meantime develop and learn the little things. Wayback when training was two times a week with a game on Saturday. Before you even got to that standard you had to have the basics. Junior cricket has exploded we have comps for as young as under 9. I would suggest to you that if all you ever do is play age group cricket and at best train one night a week, unless you have specialist outside coaching or a student of the game - you will have no hope of picking up things that I consider basic, such as running between the wickets. Given the limited time you have with kids, you need to practise the base skills which is batting and bowling and fielding - so you do nets, hit a few catches and a few throws into the keeper and you're done. You simply don't have time unless you are very well planned and organised.

I've been involved with cricket for over 30 years - the game at grass roots level is in severe decline - I talk to a lot of people across different spheres of the game - I'm not wrong with my assessments.

I don't know whether not playing cricket at under 9s = poor running between wickets. I about whether training is more or less often nowadays than previously, but I would suggest that many, many junior cricketers play cricket 3 or more times a week when you also factor in the fact that many of them play with their school teams. I also don't see how not playing cricket until later leads to you understanding the game better.

 

[Zach Package]

I'd say a large part of it would also be more net sessions and less centre wicket practising.

Nets are basically hit and giggle without consequences

 

[Daitro]

Jos Buttler run-out defended by Sri Lanka captain Angelo Mathews

Sri Lanka captain Angelo Mathews has defended the controversial run-out of England's Jos Buttler during his side's one-day international win at Edgbaston.

Bowler Sachithra Senanayake twice warned Buttler for straying out of his crease at the non-striker's end before removing the bails to dismiss him.

"He was taking starts, not only this game but in the last game as well," said Mathews after the six-wicket win.

"I would stick by it. What we did was completely within the rules."

----

England are using the old "It may be in the rules, but it's against the spirit of the game" line..... oh sweet irony!!!

 

[akkaps]

This is the commentary from cricinfo about Buttler's dismissal. Can't tell if he went out or not:

43.2Senanayake to Jordan, drifts onto the pads, clipped away fine and this pair are very rapid between the wickets199/7

 

[Hellgood]

Haven't seen the incident at all yet, but if Jayawardene is correct in saying that they gave him two warnings then I have no problem with it whatsoever. Complete arrogance to keep doing it once you have been warned.

 

[Blueboiiz]

 

[Father Jack]

I hope the booing was for the stupidity of the batsman

 

[The Passenger]

Technically within the rules to do it without warning, albeit you're gonna make yourself public enemy number 1.

But to warn both batsmen (not just one) and the batsmen to continue, then the batsmen are well at fault.

Swann's comments about being called/warned for chucking and should be keeping a low profile are stupid.

 

[Slax]

If you've got two warnings then you can't complain. This is a spin bowler doing this and Butler was over a metre down the pitch, absolutely no excuse for it and he got what he deserved, it's interesting that the virtually all the criticism of this run out has come from the English commentators and press, even then Alec Stewart came out and said he had absolutely no problem with it because the batsmen had been warned about it by Senanayake in his previous over.

 

[The_Reaper]

Gave him two warnings. If Buttler's an idiot it's not Senanayake's fault.

 

[Torz]

I'm not usually a fan of the mankad, but after two warnings it's the batsmans fault.