Mankad: Fair game or poor form?

[The Passenger]

Certainly not far enough to be worthy of a mankad anyway:

The problem with this, is what is deemed "far enough to be worthy of a mankad" ? 1 metre? 1.1 metres? 1.11 metres? Is there a warning or no warning?

Why don't we extend this vague "worthiness" to run outs, stumping's and no balls? Those have tightly defined rules around them and little - if any - ambiguity around the spirit of the game, so why not a mankad?

The spirit of the game, to me, should be around the attitudes and the participants towards each other, the opposition and the crowd. It shouldn't be about interpreting the rules, which gives rise to these scenario's where one player, or players, will have a different attitude to another.

 

[The Passenger]

I just think that Buttler should’ve been not out tbh.

Yes, he should've been not out. Dead ball. He most likely would've been behind the line "when the bowler would have been expected to deliver the ball".

But that's on the umpire to police that, and again it's a tricky one for the umpire to judge.

 

[Park cricketer]

The confusion arises from the part in the MCC rule which describes that a mankad is applicable till the moment the bowler is normally expected to release the ball. The release bit is the murky one because it's kinda arbitrary but a bowler normally releases the ball when his bowling arm reaches the highest point, i.e., the vertical.

The events that normally occur during a bowling action in order is:

1. Delivery stride of the bowler.
2. Load up of the bowling arm.
3. Landing of the front foot.
4. Bowling arm reaching the vertical.

And finally the release of the ball happens. Now according to the current rules, a bowler can effect a mankad till the 4th stage, i.e., till his bowling arm reaches the vertical which is when he is normally expected to release the ball. I presume that one cannot fake a delivery action and effect a mankad holding the ball in hand because that would be beyond the point when he's normally expected to release the ball.

A lot of people have said that the Buttler decision should have been given not out by the third umpire because Buttler was still in the crease when Ashwin loaded up. I disagree with that because Buttler was in the crease when Ashwin loaded up his bowling arm but left the crease soon after when Ashwin landed his frontfoot. I think it appeared worse because the bowler waited some 1-2 seconds before effecting the dismissal, had he immediately took the bails off after the landing of his frontfoot, I reckon Buttler would have been short by just a few centimetres. Legally, it would still be out but probably not in the spirit of the game.

 

[The Passenger]

I don't see how it wouldn't hurt to make stealing ground and mankad's a standard part of the game - ala stealing bases in baseball.

If the batsmen wants to steal six inches or a foot... you could even get a metre off quick bowlers, then go for it, but know that the bowler can whip the bails off at any point - including during his delivery stride - and you are putting your wicket in jeopardy by trying to steal some ground. Similar to the value v risk judgement of a quick single in test cricket as opposed to 50-over and 20-over cricket, batsmen will make this judgement accordingly.

 

[Park cricketer]

The only way the mankad can become socially acceptable:

 

[Woody15]

The problem with this, is what is deemed "far enough to be worthy of a mankad" ? 1 metre? 1.1 metres? 1.11 metres? Is there a warning or no warning?

Why don't we extend this vague "worthiness" to run outs, stumping's and no balls? Those have tightly defined rules around them and little - if any - ambiguity around the spirit of the game, so why not a mankad?

The spirit of the game, to me, should be around the attitudes and the participants towards each other, the opposition and the crowd. It shouldn't be about interpreting the rules, which gives rise to these scenario's where one player, or players, will have a different attitude to another.

Of course you can't quantify what is 'worthy' of a mankad. Its fairly obvious when a player is trying to get a significant head start vs walking out with the bowler.

I agree with the bolded part. Clearly when the MCC states that "Yesterday's incident could have been ruled out or not out, depending on how 'the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball' is interpreted,"

Clearly there is an issue with that. When a statement like that is issued, I have no problem with players applying 'the spirit' to this rule because obviously the rule isn't that clear cut - but if you want to play it how Ashwin did or the West Indian kid did, be prepared for some blowback. Its not like either of them were 2 paces down the wicket.

I don't see how it wouldn't hurt to make stealing ground and mankad's a standard part of the game - ala stealing bases in baseball.

You want to see bowlers run in, stop their delivery and twist around towards the stumps to try run someone out? Only for the batsman be given not out and then watch a bowler walk back top his mark? No thanks.

 

[Woody15]

The mankad dismissal itself is ugly as *. Who wants to watch that become a regular sight? The way a bowler pulls out of his action after having the non-striker in the corner of his eye.. then snaps back quickly towards the stumps and then celebrates.

 

[Park cricketer]

You want to see bowlers run in, stop their delivery and twist around towards the stumps to try run someone out? Only for the batsman be given not out and then watch a bowler walk back top his mark? No thanks.

Playing the devil's advocate, how is this any different to everytime a keeper pointlessly whips off the bails..

 

[Woody15]

Playing the devil's advocate, how is this any different to everytime a keeper pointlessly whips off the bails..

Yeh I hate that as well.

I like to see bowlers deliver the ball and the batsman play at it. I dont want to see dismissals where that doesn't happen.

 

[Woody15]

 

[Father Jack]

Maybe the non-striker should start warning bowlers if they pinch an a centimetre or two over the line when bowling the ball, and then maybe appeal if they keep doing it but the umpire should only no-ball them if he thinks that the bowler was trying to gain an advantage

 

[Bomberboyokay]

The MCC has the copyright to the laws but the ICC sets and changes them, if I recall correctly. It seems probable the IPL follow the ICC version over the MCC 'first class' version.

 

[Furn2]

You don't want it being part of the game with bowlers stopping like when a runner is on 1st and you just want them to pitch the godam ball already.

What about it can't be out but the square leg ump simply calls 1 short if the non striker is taking liberties with backing up.

 

[corbies]

The MCC has the copyright to the laws but the ICC sets and changes them, if I recall correctly. It seems probable the IPL follow the ICC version over the MCC 'first class' version.

The MCC are the only ones that can change the laws via the MCC's Laws sub-committee. The ICC can add regulations or remove laws that aren't applicable (the follow-on in a T20 for example) but the actual laws are still changed via the MCC. Organisations can change the laws if they wish but if it isn't approved by the ICC/MCC it can be in danger of losing its official status. The IPL playing conditions can be found here and interestingly they don't have a preamble about the spirit of cricket like the ICC T20 International regulations do (found here).

 

[flamethrower]

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.

You can't compare cricket to baseball. If Ashwin had done that in a baseball game it would have been called a balk, and the baserunner awarded the next base. You cannot pretend to pitch and then throw to a base to pick off a baserunner.

Personally I think the rules should be changed to eliminate the "Mankad" runout completely. The ball should not be "alive" until it leaves the bowler's hand, and a run should not count unless the non-striker was still in the crease when the ball was delivered. ie If the non-striker leaves the crease early, one short is called and the batting team lose a run.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

You cannot pretend to pitch and then throw to a base to pick off a baserunner.

I believe you can

 

[Doss]

The thing that bothers me about the ‘against the spirit of the game’ argument that those who oppose always wheel out is that they’re only applying it in one direction.

Stealing yards by walking well out of your crease before the ball is bowled seems to be pretty ‘against the spirit’, if you ask me.

Personally I don’t think a warning should really be necessary but if it was required, I suppose I could live with that. If you have been warned though, or it has happened to you previously (see Buttler), then there’s no excuse whatsoever. You can’t feign ignorance there.

 

[Yoda_]

Mankad - it's like cheating on your missus. It's not illegal but frowned upon by society so you decide if you want to do it

 

[Taylor]

It's a quirk of the system that allows an entire team to be out without a ball being bowled.

I don't think the game should be live until the ball is bowled, the onus should be on the batsman in that case to not cheat ahead of play.

 

[TigerCraig]

Poor form without a warning.

I'm ok with it if the batsman has already been warned.

Isnt the warning in the law book?

 

[Mitchell54]

If the non striker wants to be sneaky by gaining half a run before the delivery has been bowled then why can’t the bowler be sneaky and run them out if they wish to do that.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

If the non striker wants to be sneaky by gaining half a run before the delivery has been bowled then why can’t the bowler be sneaky and run them out if they wish to do that.

Sure. But that doesn’t apply to the Buttler one, of course.

 

[skipjack]

With a warning and assuming the backing up is excessive then it's ok. And by excessive I mean plainly obvious the non striker is leaving his crease before the bowler has entered his delivery.

What I have never liked was under the old rules when a bowler could steam in, and then not release the ball, by which time the non striker's momentum took him out of his crease. Never felt comfortable with it.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Hahaha poor Ravi got annoyed Dhawan mocked him last night lol

Was hilarious

 

[akkaps]

Hahaha poor Ravi got annoyed Darwan mocked him last night lol

Was hilarious

**Dhawan.