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: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
To avoid the mankad I start walking in from behind the umpire. That way I am already in stride when the bowl reaches the crease, and we pass the crease at the same time.
It's also ridiculous for the umpire to check with Matthews whether he wants to withdraw the appeal. Either we do that for every wicket or we do it for none. If a captain wants to withdraw an appeal, then he can approach the umpire himself to call the batsman back, it's not the umpire's role to check with him.
To avoid the mankad I start walking in from behind the umpire. That way I am already in stride when the bowl reaches the crease, and we pass the crease at the same time.
If the above is legal, then you could pretty much get any batsman out that way whenever you chose.
Poor IMO. In the rules yes, but appears to be a desperate attempt to get a batsman out who was playing really well.
Im saying I dont like the rule/interpretation of the rule. Just like I dont like the below the knees rule, the 50m rule interpretation in its current state in the AFL etc.It's not poor if it's in the rules.
Runners in baseball test the pitchers and vice versa often.
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).I don't understand why a player gets mankaded at an international level. You learn how to back up properly from the very start of juniors and over time it's really not hard to watch the bowler start his run up and then time your back up on that.
It really just shows the non-strikers lack of awareness when they don't back up properly.
Disagree play would be held up, at least in the long run. Remove the stigma and batsmen will stop trying to pinch runs quick smart.Obviously there has to be some rule regarding backing up, but do we really want to see mankads becoming a regular way to dismiss a batsman? Do we really want to see play held up all the time because mankads are now widely practiced?
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?Obviously the rule is to prevent non-strikers from running down the wicket and getting a head start which Buttler was certainly not doing. Had Ashwin actually landed his front foot on the bowling crease and delivered the ball instead of stopping and waiting for Buttler to wander a foot outside his crease, Buttler would still have had his bat grounded. He wasn't trying to get a head start or a great advantage, merely walking down with the bowler.
Poor IMO. In the rules yes, but appears to be a desperate attempt to get a batsman out who was playing really well.
If Australia dont win the World Cup, my next hope is England v India final, and the same thing happens to either Kohli or Ashwin. That would be incredibly, incredibly satisfying.