The Mankad rule

[golions]

Sometimes cricket makes life difficult for itself.

The Mankad rule is one such example.

Why in the world does this rule have to be a 'grey-area' rule?

Why don't we just say: if the non-striker is out of the crease before the bowler has bowled the ball, they can be run out, at any time.

That way, the non-striker knows he can't leave the crease until the bowler has let go of the ball.

It's simple, easy to adjudicate and everyone would be clear on where they stand [pun intended]. It would also stop the farcical situation we have now where the non-striker can gain an unfair advantage and face no real consequence.

Again, cricket making life hard for itself.

 

[JimDocker]

I guess you are referring to the incident first ball of the innings?

I totally understand where you are coming from but I am pretty happy that this grey area exists. It may seem quaint on this day and age but it is nice that a captain can do the decent thing and not appeal.

It keeps cricket civilised.

 

[PTizzle]

I don't think it's a grey-area rule, it's a sportsmanship rule. We could have asked for the wicket and got it.

He got a warning and that's that.

 

[krisholio14]

I guess you are referring to the incident first ball of the innings?

I totally understand where you are coming from but I am pretty happy that this grey area exists. It may seem quaint on this day and age but it is nice that a captain can do the decent thing and not appeal.

It keeps cricket civilised.

Screw that. If you're backing up out of your crease that's cheating. If you get run out stiff shit. It's like getting picked off stealing a base in baseball.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

If you're backing up out of your crease that's cheating.

Is stealing a base in baseball cheating? No. I don't see backing up as cheating. It's a common sense thing, really. Don't back up like a complete nutter, and you won't be Mankaded.

 

[krisholio14]

Is stealing a base in baseball cheating? No. I don't see backing up as cheating. It's a common sense thing, really. Don't back up like a complete nutter, and you won't be Mankaded.

It's called stealing FFS lol. And you are out if you get caught doing it, unlike cricket.

The difference is that it's 'legal' in baseball, and 'illegal' in cricket, yet one gives you out no questions asked, and the other allows you to do it with no repercussions.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

It's called stealing FFS lol. And you are out if you get caught doing it, unlike cricket.

The difference is that it's 'legal' in baseball, and 'illegal' in cricket, yet one gives you out no questions asked, and the other allows you to do it with no repercussions.

It's not illegal in cricket. You are allowed to back up.

 

[krisholio14]

It's not illegal in cricket. You are allowed to back up.

Yes but not whenever you like.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Yes but not whenever you like.

Well, there is nothing in any sport that you can do 'whenever you like'. That is why there are rules. I enjoy the grey area nature of this matter. Makes for drama, the opportunity for sportsmanship, the opportunity of potential gamesmanship. Makes cricket the wonderful game it is.

 

[PowerForGood]

I've read that it wouldn't have been out if reviewed in any case, as the back foot had landed in delivery and as such could not run out the batsman. Can anyone confirm one way or the other? thanks

 

[golions]

I guess you are referring to the incident first ball of the innings?

Sort of, but I've been bothered by it for a while

I totally understand where you are coming from but I am pretty happy that this grey area exists. It may seem quaint on this day and age but it is nice that a captain can do the decent thing and not appeal.

It keeps cricket civilised.

I don't think we can call cricket civilised with some of the disgraceful sledges thrown about player's mothers/wives/daughters can we?

also, we can forget about sportsmanship these days with the amount of overappealing/non-walking/appealing when it's not out that goes on. Heck you're not even allowed a runner anymore.

Is stealing a base in baseball cheating? No. I don't see backing up as cheating. It's a common sense thing, really. Don't back up like a complete nutter, and you won't be Mankaded.

This is the problem. With the current interpretation, even if you back up like a complete nutter, the fielding team would be frowned upon for appealing the first time it happened. That shouldn't be the case.

Picture this:
World cup final
Team A needs 2 runs to win off the last ball with one wicket in hand.
No Mankad warnings have been handed out at this stage of the match.
The non-striker is basically half way up the pitch as the bowler is in his delivery stride (trying to get an unfair advantage knowing that his wicket will be safe due to 'sportsmanship')

If the bowler runs him out in this situation and appeals, he will know that the victory will be marred with controversy. Whereas it shouldn't.

 

[PowerForGood]

Confirmed on ESPN that it would have been not out even if appealed, as the ball was released accidentally.

 

[PowerForGood]

Picture this:
World cup final
Team A needs 2 runs to win off the last ball with one wicket in hand.
No Mankad warnings have been handed out at this stage of the match.
The non-striker is basically half way up the pitch as the bowler is in his delivery stride (trying to get an unfair advantage knowing that his wicket will be safe due to 'sportsmanship')

If the bowler runs him out in this situation and appeals, he will know that the victory will be marred with controversy. Whereas it shouldn't.

So, the bowler should notice well in advance because the player is halfway up the pitch, not deliver the ball and warn the runner. He can then "safely" run him out the next delivery if he does it again. Whats the problem?

 

[golions]

So, the bowler should notice well in advance because the player is halfway up the pitch, not deliver the ball and warn the runner. He can then "safely" run him out the next delivery if he does it again. Whats the problem?

the problem is that in no other aspect of the game does a player get a 'second-chance', especially for a blatant deliberate abuse of the rules
if a bowler bowls a no-ball or a wide does he get a warning?
so why should a batsman?
it's not like staying in your crease until the ball is delivered is a hard thing to do

also, with the warning system - is it one warning per player or one warning per team?

unnecessary grey area IMO

 

[Black Diamond]

Another one of those "spirit of the game" rules that shit me. Should be allowed all of the time and there should be no onus on the bowler to warn the batsman.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Not really spirit of the game, its whether the Captain has balls to do it and can accept the repercussions that it will bring.

 

[Caesar]

also, we can forget about sportsmanship these days with the amount of overappealing/non-walking/appealing when it's not out that goes on.

The nice thing about cricket is that it provides the opportunities for displaying sportsmanship, even if people don't always conform to it. The whole basis behind the appeals system is to say "you're all big boys and you know the difference between right and wrong. There are written rules here if you need them, and umpires to enforce them, but first of all try and resolve your disputes by mutual agreement".

It's a wonderful way to look at sport. It puts the onus on players to decide how they want to play the game, and reveals character. Players who want to be sporting have plenty of opportunities to do so, and will be lauded for it. Players who prefer playing hardball and taking every advantage they can get under the letter of the law are equally able to do so - but they aren't able to hide behind the excuse of "it's the rules, it sucks that it's unfair but that's how it is" or "the official screwed up, there's nothing I can do". They're accountable for their gamesmanship.

People who don't like the spirit-of-the-game-first philosophy of cricket can go and watch baseball for all I care.

 

[Black Diamond]

Not really spirit of the game, its whether the Captain has balls to do it and can accept the repercussions that it will bring.

The reason for the repercussions is the spirit of the game.

 

[mediumsizered]

I've read that it wouldn't have been out if reviewed in any case, as the back foot had landed in delivery and as such could not run out the batsman. Can anyone confirm one way or the other? thanks

According to the law in relation to fair & unfair play, the bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. So what you are saying is pretty much right, with the key term being 'before entering the delivery stride'.

 

[Gough]

I think we are clutching at straws quite honestly. If Starc had deliberately tried to Mankad him it would be different, but lets face it, he dropped the ball running in to bowl.

 

[sherb]

Another one of those "spirit of the game" rules that shit me. Should be allowed all of the time and there should be no onus on the bowler to warn the batsman.

Agreed.

And I think it is cheating too. I played a lot of cricket and I never had any issue leaving the crease until the ball left the bowler's hand. It's not that hard to do.

 

[Badesumofu]

Agreed.

And I think it is cheating too. I played a lot of cricket and I never had any issue leaving the crease until the ball left the bowler's hand. It's not that hard to do.

It's not cheating to backup or to mankad. It might be unsporting, or outside the spirit of the game or something like that, but there is no rule that says the batsman can't back up. There is a rule that says the batsman can be run out if they back up too soon, but that doesn't make backing cheating anymore than it makes trying to run between wickets after hitting the ball cheating.

Similarly, there is no grey area around mankadding, rulewise. The rules are clear, but Cricket values the spirit of the game in a way that other sports do not. Personally, I think that is fantastic. My feelings on this issue more or less echo what Ceasar has already expressed.

 

[BarneyBent]

It's far more unsporting to back up by 3 metres. Bring back the Mankad I say.

 

[dr nick]

pfft sportsmanship.

It's unsporting trying to gain advantage by backing up too far when it is expected that the fielding side will not appeal if you are caught out doing so.

Good on the non-striker for trying to gain an advantage, but there should be some inherent risk associated with giving yourself 20 yards to make it to the other end... and I would have no bones about appealing if some guy tried to do this off my bowling.

 

[dr nick]

Quite honestly most of these spirit of the game decisions are enforced because the lawmakers are about 50 years behind the sport.

Underarm being another example.


If it was sporting not to appeal for a mankad then they shouldn't be appealing when the ball flicks the bowlers fingers off a straight drive and runs out the non-striker.