An article in one of the newspapers was talking about pointless rules in sport, and one of the rules brought up was the mankad in cricket.
Personally i have no problem with a player being run out by the bowler without a warning, and it is as much in the spirit of the game as backing up to far to try and steal a run (particularly if its when the ball goes through to the keeper off a fast bowler). I don't see why the runner should be protected and allowed to shorten the run, particularly when the bowler suffers a penalty when only an inch over the crease. And in any case if a bowler is able to see that you're out of your crease while running in, stop their run-up and turn around to run you out then you were probably quite a long way out to begin with. In baseball stealing a base is a legitimate tactic but it comes with the risk of being run out, and it makes perfect sense. The 'spectacle' of seeing players at the end of an innings running byes to the keeper is in my mind a blight on the game and the bowler should be able to have a counter to it with the mankad.
Opinions?
(i should mention that as far as i can remember the article didn't actually say WHY they think its a pointless rule)
Personally i have no problem with a player being run out by the bowler without a warning, and it is as much in the spirit of the game as backing up to far to try and steal a run (particularly if its when the ball goes through to the keeper off a fast bowler). I don't see why the runner should be protected and allowed to shorten the run, particularly when the bowler suffers a penalty when only an inch over the crease. And in any case if a bowler is able to see that you're out of your crease while running in, stop their run-up and turn around to run you out then you were probably quite a long way out to begin with. In baseball stealing a base is a legitimate tactic but it comes with the risk of being run out, and it makes perfect sense. The 'spectacle' of seeing players at the end of an innings running byes to the keeper is in my mind a blight on the game and the bowler should be able to have a counter to it with the mankad.
Opinions?
(i should mention that as far as i can remember the article didn't actually say WHY they think its a pointless rule)