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

(Log in to remove this ad.)

akkaps

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Posts
38,040
Likes
23,520
AFL Club
Carlton
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 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.
 

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
17,546
Likes
10,114
Location
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
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.
 

big_e

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Posts
4,353
Likes
10,748
Location
Your Wi-Fi
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers, 76ers
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.
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.)
 

Wallaby

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 8, 2007
Posts
8,283
Likes
8,695
Location
vic
AFL Club
Richmond
It's a bit hard for the bowler to trick the batsman, if the batsman is watching the ball.

The MCC should never have changed the Mankad laws a few years ago - when you are trying to put rules around 'spirit of the game' it always fails.

Sure, you don't mankad your mates on the beach or in the backyard - and you don't get a golden duck either. That's fine. (LBs? Meh, maybe:D).

But if you are playing a serious game, and expect the laws of that to be used and followed - follow the bloody laws yourself.
 

Park cricketer

All Australian
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Posts
873
Likes
1,066
AFL Club
Adelaide
The mankad debate ultimately revolves around the idea of whether you want to penalise a batsman for stealing a few inches or not. A 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. A minority feel it's a legitimate dismissal but since a batsman gets just one chance unlike the bowler, a mankad after an obligatory warning is appropriate. Very few feel strongly in favour of mankad without a warning. Ashwin is one of those. He has repeatedly said before that mankad is a legitimate way to get someone out and if it's not in the spirit of the game, then the bowlers should also be allowed a leeway of overstepping a few cms beyond the bowling crease during the death overs. Murali Karthik is another one of those who has spoken in favour of mankad long before, and said bowlers don't get warnings for no balls and instead they get penalised with free hits and so a batsman isn't entitled to get one either. Ashwin revealed after the nail biting win against Bangladesh in WT20 2016 that he had asked Pandya to try mankading the non striker. In his own words, “I probably gave him a cheeky idea to try a ‘Mankad’ in the end. We might have taken flak, but why not”. Knowing Ashwin, he is the kinda guy whose life long dream would probably have been to mankad a player in a match.

Three years back, in a quadrangular tournament between associates, an Omani player mankaded a player from Hong Kong in a match. Porterfield was asked about it and he said it's not really something he agrees with and is not how he wants his side to win. Oman captain said that if it's not in the spirit of the game, then why it was in the rules and told it was actually the batsman who was breaching the rules of the game by stealing a few yards even before a ball has been delivered and it was almost cheating from the part of the batsman. It's a very polarising debate and guys like Hazlewood and Cummins have spoken that mankad is not really a way they would like to get a wicket from whereas Johnson has spoken in favour of mankad eventhough he never effected one in his career.

The reason it's so polarising is because of the stigma that's comes with it to a bowler who effects it. Cricket has improvised and evolved vastly over the years, yet it's still a fairly orthodox colonial construct when compared to other sports where "how you play" matters more than whether you win. Back in the 1890s, the offside was the preferred zone of scoring and scoring anything on the legside was frowned upon. Youngsters were strictly told not to play across the line and leg stump half volleys were usually patted back to the bowler. It was Ranjitsinhji who defied the unspoken law and started whipping straight deliveries to the legside through an entirely new shot, the leg glance. The fielders also were usually stacked in the offside because that was the normal scoring zone and rarely in the legside. Ranji made full use of this and scored a lot of runs on the legside and attracted criticism for the same from a few critics for doing so in his time.

It was pretty much the same for the bowlers where bowling outside the off stump was usually the "right" way of bowling to a batsman and anything directed at the body of the batsman was deemed an "ugly" manner of bowling and an unethical way to get a wicket, but it all changed after the bodyline series in early 1930s. At this point in time, the mankad is at crossroads atleast when it comes to public perception and its fate has two possibilities. It may yet evolve to a socially more acceptable mode of dismissal which would then influence the batsmen to remain static and vigilant till the ball is delivered, or it may even be banned in future as against the spirit of the game because of majoritarian sentiment against it. Afterall, no matter what, fans would always feel hard done by when a player in their side gets dismissed off a mankad in a crucial world cup match.
 

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
17,546
Likes
10,114
Location
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
From 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.
I think we're still looking at this through a test match lens, when T20 cricket is very different and those inches matter
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Westend

All Australian
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Posts
826
Likes
396
AFL Club
West Coast
I actually think we can learn a thing or two from our Indoor Cousins

this is how I played it when I Umpired Indoor and it was common

F. Mankad: The non-striker will be given out "Mankad" if they leave their crease prior to the ball being bowled and the bowler then completes a delivery action and breaks the stumps with the hand holding the ball.
i. A mankad attempt does not have to be in one continuous motion but the ball must remain in the bowler's delivery hand throughout the mankad attempt.
ii. The bowler must have the ball at the commencement of their delivery stride.
iii. A legitimate mankad dismissal or unsuccessful attempt does not count as part of an over.
iv. If a bowler, attempting a mankad, releases the ball towards the non-striker's stumps during their delivery action, the umpire will call and signal "No Ball, Dead Ball". This delivery will not count as part of the over and incurs the "No Ball" penalty. The umpire must call and signal "Play" to re-commence the game.
v. When the non-striker holds their crease and a bowler makes an unsuccessful mankad attempt in any over, the non-striker will be credited with 2 runs. The unsuccessful mankad attempt does not count as part of an over and the 2 runs credited will not affect the score off the previous or the following delivery.
vi. An unsuccessful mankad attempt is where a bowler completes a bowling action and either breaks the stumps or in the umpire’s opinion, holds the ball near the stumps in the hope the non-striker will leave their crease early. Any mankad attempt where the bails are not removed is still considered an unsuccessful mankad attempt. If a bowler wants to warn the non-striker for leaving early and not incur the 2 run penalty, they must complete a delivery action and, in the umpire’s opinion, intentionally keep the ball away from the stumps such as finishing their delivery action near the popping crease or continuing through it.
vii. If the mankad attempt is successful, the ball does not count as part of the over and does not affect the score off the previous or following delivery.

What I like about it...is that the bowler has to attempt to bowl a delivery….

Also if the bowler stuffs up there is a penalty involved......this could be a free hit in t20/ ODi

there are some interesting points above which I think could be used in the outdoor arena
 

big_e

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Posts
4,353
Likes
10,748
Location
Your Wi-Fi
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers, 76ers
A 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.
 

Park cricketer

All Australian
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Posts
873
Likes
1,066
AFL Club
Adelaide
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.
Yes, but I was talking about public perception. The mankad is also in the rules but not many people accept it.
 

eddiesmith

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Posts
46,436
Likes
4,550
Location
Junktion Oval
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
England Cronulla
If the batsman is outside his crease at the time the bowler bowls the ball and the bowler hits the stumps accidentally, is that out mankad or just a no ball?
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Posts
32,532
Likes
22,691
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Put me in the camp that has zero issue with mankad.

However what I will say is I don't think Buttler was out - Ashwin had entered his delivery stride in my view and therefore buttler has every right to be out of his crease.

But we had a scenario where blokes are stealing 2 metres - it's bullshit. That is just as bad if some supposed spirit of cricket means they can't be given out
 

Moonwatcher

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Posts
16,068
Likes
11,619
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Have never played cricket so don't have a feel for 'the spirit of the game' but it doesn't make sense to allow a batsperson to steal as much ground as they want. Baseball has no issue with their equivalent to mankad. There is no expectation that the pitcher was ever really going to pitch.
 

The Passenger

Mr. Mojo Risin'
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Posts
30,216
Likes
16,801
Location
Hasa Diga Eebowai
AFL Club
West Coast
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:
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.
 

Docker82

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Posts
2,831
Likes
2,924
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
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.
 

big_e

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Posts
4,353
Likes
10,748
Location
Your Wi-Fi
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers, 76ers
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.
 

Wallaby

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 8, 2007
Posts
8,283
Likes
8,695
Location
vic
AFL Club
Richmond
Of course Butler was trying to get an advantage! Why else was he on the move - he could just as easily stay still in his crease until his partner hits the ball.

To score a run in cricket, you have to run 22 yards (well, a bit less actually), and at all times when you are running those 22 yards, you are in danger of being dismissed. That's why all batsmen back up - to try and get a head start on the quick run ansd spend less time in the danger zone - the area between the two popping creases.
 

Docker82

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Posts
2,831
Likes
2,924
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Good blokes vs unlikeable Indians.

Was wondering when it would get to this.
It was certainly a low move by Ashwin imo and Buttler was not backing up excessively - in fact if Ashwin had bowled the ball he might have still been in the crease when the ball left Ashwin’s hand.

Ashwin has always been a flog and has done this before except Tendulkar and Sehwag withdrew the appeal because they have some sense of class.
 

Woody15

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Posts
2,747
Likes
3,239
Location
Somewhere
AFL Club
Collingwood
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.
If you read my other posts, I stated numerous times I have an issue with players doing this:

Screen Shot 2019-03-26 at 8.04.00 pm.png

Clearly this is wrong and I have no problem with a mankad here.

The Buttler mankad I think was a massive overreaction by Ashwin. I dont want to see mankads become common like Buttler's where Ashwin delays delivering the ball so Buttler creeps out of his crease. Buttler was hardly out of his crease in the deliveries prior. Certainly not far enough to be worthy of a mankad anyway:

Screen Shot 2019-03-27 at 6.49.33 pm.png

Same with this one from the U19 WC with the West Indies. This campaigner had no intention of delivering this ball and surprise surprise, attempted the mankad with Zimbabwe needing 3 off 6 to win the game.

mankad-759.jpg


They're the ones I dont want to see on regular basis.
 

The Passenger

Mr. Mojo Risin'
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Posts
30,216
Likes
16,801
Location
Hasa Diga Eebowai
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
 

Docker82

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Posts
2,831
Likes
2,924
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
This is even more vague than the current rule and interpretation. Would be a minefield for umpires to tread through.
No way I can think would be perfect - that’s for sure.

I just think that Buttler should’ve been not out tbh. If you’re a metre down the wicket than sure, but Buttler was just doing what every cricketer does really - and a lot are doing it a fair bit more than he did.
 
Top Bottom