Mankad: Fair game or poor form?

Mankad

  • Within the spirit - with a warning

    Votes: 60 62.5%
  • Within the spirit - without a warning

    Votes: 26 27.1%
  • Not in the spirit in any case

    Votes: 10 10.4%

  • Total voters
    96

Richard Pryor

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Posts
7,056
Likes
8,840
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It's worth a shot in international cricket because chances are the bowler isn't going to want to deal with the media circus of actually mankading the batsman (also Buttler funnily enough) so they can do whatever they want. (See that SL v ENG game where the batsman was warned multiple times and then mankaded and Cook still brought up "Spirit of the Game" BS in his press conference).
Source on Cook:
In a 2014 ODI at the Birmingham ground, Buttler was dismissed when he was run out by Sri Lanka off-spinner Sachithra Senanayake at the non-striker’s end in his delivery stride, having been previously warned for leaving his crease too early.

The mankad provoked boos from the Edgbaston crowd and England captain Alastair Cook later suggested a “line had been crossed” by Senanayake and Sri Lanka captain Mahela Jayawardena.

And while Buttler also expressed his displeasure with Sri Lanka’s tactics at the time, the 25-year-old now concedes he was in the wrong.

“It is obviously batsman error,” Buttler said. “If you walk out of your ground and someone wants to do it, it is in the laws of the game. It is all part of the game.
“I was disappointed at the time, because it doesn't happen very often. I thought you could do that every ball if you wanted and there would be a chance to run someone out.
“But the bowler would say why don't you just stay in your crease? So I guess I did learn something from it.”

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/eng...tler-sachithra-senanayake-joe-root/2016-06-24
Must admit my take on this instance is heavily influenced by how much Cook's sanctimonious whinging about the mankad in this case pissed me off.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

akkaps

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Posts
38,040
Likes
23,520
AFL Club
Carlton
I thought the rule centred around the delivery stride, that they can't mankad them once they've entered their delivery stride? In Krams picture above, Ashwin clearly has

But given the IPL is a nothing tournament, who really cares?
The image above has been edited with Ashwin normal delivery stride photoshopped over the top of the original photo. You can see that Buttler was still in the crease after Ashwin has turned to dislodge the bails. Buttler's awareness for the game was not there, hence him moving out of his crease.

I believe that rule is that the bowler must have started his delivery stride, and in the real footage, Ashwin had planted his front foot then turned around.
 

Woody15

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Posts
2,747
Likes
3,239
Location
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
Any movement past the popping crease before the bowler has bowled is a head start. It's making the distance from non-striker to the batting crease shorter, intent or not. What's to stop the non-striker starting half way down the pitch then?
If you want to walk in with the bowler, start with the ump, and make sure you cross the popping creasing as the bowler moves is arm over.
As I said in my post, obviously there HAS to be some sort of restriction to prevent players from starting half way down the wicket. Im not arguing for no rule and the batsman can do what they want. Its a grey area and I understand the debate around it.

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:

mankad.jpg


But the other deliveries in the over last night, and deliveries from other overs, I dont see the issue unless they're doing the above. Most of the time they're on the crease or the bat is grounded waiting to see whether they are about to run when the bowler is at the top of his action.

Personally I think its a way to dismiss the batsman generally when they're desperate for a wicket.

Example: https://www.cricket.com.au/video/ma...-mankad-keemo-paul-richard-ngarava/2016-02-02
 

eddiesmith

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Posts
46,436
Likes
4,550
Location
Junktion Oval
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
England Cronulla
The image above has been edited with Ashwin normal delivery stride photoshopped over the top of the original photo. You can see that Buttler was still in the crease after Ashwin has turned to dislodge the bails. Buttler's awareness for the game was not there, hence him moving out of his crease.

I believe that rule is that the bowler must have started his delivery stride, and in the real footage, Ashwin had planted his front foot then turned around.
Buttler was doing was every batsman does and no wonder people are upset, he wasn't stealing a run, as it shows he is still in his crease and if Ashwin bowled it, he probably leaves his crease after the ball has been released.

Its what I do, I see the bowler running in and start walking with the intention of hitting the crease at the same time, but I'm focused on my partner and just watching the bowler out of the corner of my eye.

But as I said, its the sort of tactics you expect in hit and giggle cricket and its probably helping the IPL as 99.9% of the world weren't even aware it was on, let alone care about it!
 

akkaps

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Posts
38,040
Likes
23,520
AFL Club
Carlton
As I said in my post, obviously there HAS to be some sort of restriction to prevent players from starting half way down the wicket. Im not arguing for no rule and the batsman can do what they want. Its a grey area and I understand the debate around it.

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:

View attachment 642475

But the other deliveries in the over last night, and deliveries from other overs, I dont see the issue unless they're doing the above. Most of the time they're on the crease or the bat is grounded waiting to see whether they are about to run when the bowler is at the top of his action.

Personally I think its a way to dismiss the batsman generally when they're desperate for a wicket.

Example: https://www.cricket.com.au/video/ma...-mankad-keemo-paul-richard-ngarava/2016-02-02
What it looks like to me is that your against the forward motion that the non-striker has towards the batting crease with the intent to steal the run. But what constitutes intent? And why have the need to move out of your crease if you are not trying to make it to the other end as quick as possible. Just stay in your crease.
 

Woody15

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Posts
2,747
Likes
3,239
Location
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
What it looks like to me is that your against the forward motion that the non-striker has towards the batting crease with the intent to steal the run. But what constitutes intent?
Yes you could say I'm against the intent but to try judge intent is going to be incredibly difficult if not impossible.

And why have the need to move out of your crease if you are not trying to make it to the other end as quick as possible. Just stay in your crease.
If players were really moving out of their crease to try get to the other end as quick as possible, they wouldn't be dawdling out of the crease like they normally do. More often than not, the bat is still in the crease at the time of delivery.

Photos from the over prior to the dismissal.


Buttler's bat is on the line or extremely close to the line when Ashwin is at the top of his action. Here is some from the other innings where most of them appear to show the batsman with their bat in crease or extremely close to:


Generally speaking and looking at the above examples, mankading is not really a problem so I dont feel the need to over police it. Every so often, it happens and the debate starts again. I certainly dont want it to become a regular part of cricket. No one really wants to see a top player being mankaded in the way the Buttler was last night. Obviously there are situations as I posted previously where the batsman is taking the piss. But this is not one of the occasions IMO.
 

crowmyzone

Baghdad Kayoosh
Joined
May 20, 2001
Posts
28,800
Likes
23,046
Location
Beetaloo
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Baghdad Bombers
Not poor form. At all. Spirit of the game? A load of complete garbage and has always been so.

You want to align yourself to the "spirit of the game"? Read the fecking rulebook. It says quite clearly not to leave your crease, and that the bowler can run you out if you do. I learned this at about age 6, I don't know what's so difficult to grasp.

I'd run every batsmen out every single time without warning. Quite happily.
POTY and spot far king on!!
The spirit of the game was shit canned years ago when LegTheory was bowled. I say good on him the Mankad Man.
 

Adelaide Hawk

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 21, 2002
Posts
45,302
Likes
33,948
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Norwood
What it looks like to me is that your against the forward motion that the non-striker has towards the batting crease with the intent to steal the run. But what constitutes intent? And why have the need to move out of your crease if you are not trying to make it to the other end as quick as possible. Just stay in your crease.
Yep, people saying he wasn't trying to attempt a run are kidding themselves. That's precisely the reason for backing up at the non-striker's end, to get off to a flier when attempting a run.

Now, why do we have rules if spirit of the game is more important? The rules of the game prevent a batsman from getting an unfair advantage. It would be nice to observe this when bowlers are expected to keep their feet behind the line, and there are restricted areas where they can bowl, otherwise they are called for wide, etc. Batsmen on the other hand can jump around, switch hands, and people think it's okay for a batsmen trying to cheat by backing up too far before the ball is bowled? Give me a break.

And what's this "warning" crap? Why does a batsman need to be told not to back up too far? He knows that already. It's one of the rules of the game. Do we say "next time to snick a ball into a keeper's glove you will be given out"? Next time the ball knows your middle peg out of the ground you will be out bowled? Do we need to get to the stage where every new batsman is read the rules like they warn boxers about low blows, rabbit punches, etc, before each fight? I was taught to watch the bowler's hand and not to back up until the ball has left the hand. It is very easy to do.

From what I understand, the batsman in question is a recidivist. He has been warned time and time again, and yet he still does it. No sympathy from me. On ya bike pal, you're out.
 

Woody15

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Posts
2,747
Likes
3,239
Location
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
Yep, people saying he wasn't trying to attempt a run are kidding themselves. That's precisely the reason for backing up at the non-striker's end, to get off to a flier when attempting a run.
You could tell from his actions that he was attempting to run on that particular ball 100% ? Shit, if I was attempting to run on that ball, I'd be heading out a lot quicker than Buttler was..

His bat would have been in the crease if Ashwin had delivered the ball. To complete a run at the other end, you only have to ground your bat to be 'in your crease'. So shouldn't the non-striker be judged to be in his crease as well if his bat is grounded?

Technically, for runs to be completed, you really only have to carry your bat from crease to crease.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Woody15

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Posts
2,747
Likes
3,239
Location
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
If you are not attempting to run, why leave the crease?
I always walked through the crease with the bowler when he was delivering the ball with my bat dragging in the crease behind. For me it was more about being on my toes and ready to run rather than trying to get a head start. I didn't want to be flat footed. I probably had my feet just outside the crease if not on it. I was focused on what the batsman on strike was doing.

I never in my head thought to get further out of the crease so I could run a shorter distance.
 

akkaps

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Posts
38,040
Likes
23,520
AFL Club
Carlton
I always walked through the crease with the bowler when he was delivering the ball with my bat dragging in the crease behind. For me it was more about being on my toes and ready to run rather than trying to get a head start. I didn't want to be flat footed. I probably had my feet just outside the crease if not on it. I was focused on what the batsman on strike was doing.

I never in my head thought to get further out of the crease so I could run a shorter distance.
You can still do that by being behind the line when the bowler bowls the ball.

You may never have intended to be running a shorter distance, but it is the result.
 

Woody15

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Posts
2,747
Likes
3,239
Location
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
Then you are fine.

The issue all along with mankad is that the bag is not in the crease.
If I set up 4-5 feet outside the crease, with my arm outstretched and the bat grounded in the crease, I have much more of a head start than Buttler had in some of those images. Yet, Buttler's bat is only just outside the crease in some of those images and possibly in the crease had Ashwin delivered the ball.

I understand the point your making. I said earlier I understand the other side of the argument. There has to be some sort of rule to prevent some of the situations I have posted previously. I dont think its perfect as it is, but I also dont think its a massive problem. You rarely see a mankad and when you do, debate rages and disappears not long after and really isn't thought of until the next incident some time later.

I just think it comes down to some common sense really from both bowler and batsman.
 

Xtreme

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Posts
32,070
Likes
24,003
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I love a good Mankad!

Would love to see it in the world cup, bonus points if it was a wicket that resulted in Australia getting knocked out of the tournament as a result :)
 

kickazz

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Posts
7,388
Likes
9,201
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
The controversy comes about only due to the culture of allowing the non striker to cheat ground "just a little bit"

You can't take off "just a little bit" before the gun in the 100m.

Closer to home, a no ball that is only "a little bit" over is a no ball and results in a wicket ball no longer being a wicket ball.

So it should be with a Mankad. Batsmen simply must learn to watch the ball come out of the bowler's hand before running. Write a single warning into the rules if you like, but the Mankad needs to be seen as a legitimate form of dismissal.
 

Westend

All Australian
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Posts
826
Likes
396
AFL Club
West Coast
The controversy comes about only due to the culture of allowing the non striker to cheat ground "just a little bit"

You can't take off "just a little bit" before the gun in the 100m.

Closer to home, a no ball that is only "a little bit" over is a no ball and results in a wicket ball no longer being a wicket ball.

So it should be with a Mankad. Batsmen simply must learn to watch the ball come out of the bowler's hand before running. Write a single warning into the rules if you like, but the Mankad needs to be seen as a legitimate form of dismissal.

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
 

FRUMPY

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Posts
8,446
Likes
7,143
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Play by the rules, leave your crease and get run out, then so be it. FFS batsmen have it so easy with their big bats, small boundaries, quick outfields, bowling restrictions etc.
 

kickazz

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Posts
7,388
Likes
9,201
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
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
Yeah, it is open to trickery, and that's why it think the culture needs to change such that batsmen always watch the ball coming out of the hand before running.
 
Top Bottom