Why is Mankading 'against the spirit' of the game?

[Jono]

I can't stand it in indoor. I know it's perfectly acceptable and part of the rules but I don't like it and it usually leads to a pretty poor relationship between the two sides from that point on.

I'd mankad you in my sleep if my team (Curry Puffs with Cream) ever came up against you.

 

[pasag]

Deleted all the crap (and will continue to do so), because I can.

 

[sledger]

how come Gelmans post count isnt visible?

 

[Richard]

Haha, WoW!

Maybe he's testing some new custom-display-or-don't-display postcount thing.

 

[PhoenixFire]

IMO, if the batsman is trying to steal runs, then I don't see why you shouldn't be able to stump them out. I don't see how it is any worse than what NZ did against Murali a while back.

 

[Nate]

I can't stand it in indoor. I know it's perfectly acceptable and part of the rules but I don't like it and it usually leads to a pretty poor relationship between the two sides from that point on.

AWTA. Had it happening the other week. Just play frbs.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think there's also the element of the batsman's back being turned which helps the perception it's contrary to the spirit of the game.

Mind you, taking off to run ridiculously early is also contrary to the spirit of the game.

Yeah they're both iffy but the costs of the two (sneaking a run vs Mankadding a bloke) are vastly different. If a batsman sneaks a run, he gets one extra run. There's a 'sliding doors' argument too where you could argue that a batsman would have been run-out if he wasn't able to get that extra metre in but the flip-side of that is that he might get out soon after which he wouldn't have done had he not sneaked the run. That's all theoretical, though. When you Mankad someone, you instantly cost the team one of only 10 possible wickets and there's no opportunity for that team to re-address the balance aside from if the next guy is a better batsman.

That's probably a large portion of why it's considered poor form; batsmen sneaking runs costs you some runs but you can always chase them down. Mankadding a batsman costs that team a wicket and they can't compensate for that. I've always been a fan of a warning and if the guy transgressed again, Mankad away.

And Jono, if we ever played indoor cricket against each other and you Mankadded me, be assured that you'd only get one opportunity to do it but I'd have at least 6 to make you spit teeth.

 

[Jono]

Pffh, price to pay.

I'd probably cop one in the mouth from you the first ball, but you'd be one of those guys that turns his back when going back to his mark, and as in Indoor the ball is always alive, I'd just take a run.

I love doing that, suddenly a partnership/skin of 30 becomes a 35-40.

 

[_Ed_]

Captain of a side I was playing in Mankaded a bloke on 99 once.

Umpire said "You're ****ing kidding aren't you?"

"No".

"Well then, it's out".

Brilliant.

 

[Top_Cat]

Pffh, price to pay.

I'd probably cop one in the mouth from you the first ball, but you'd be one of those guys that turns his back when going back to his mark, and as in Indoor the ball is always alive, I'd just take a run.

I love doing that, suddenly a partnership/skin of 30 becomes a 35-40.

Man, you're one of THOSE indoor players. Bastards. *spits*

 

[SJS]

Why is Mankading 'against the spirit' of the game?

It is not unless you think a batsman taking undue advantage to steel a run is doing something 'in keeping with the spirit of the game'

 

[nexxus]

YWhen you Mankad someone, you instantly cost the team one of only 10 possible wickets and there's no opportunity for that team to re-address the balance aside from if the next guy is a better batsman.

Pfft, if you try to sneak an unfair advantage and get caught, then why shouldn't you lose your wicket? If I got caught trying to sneak a sweetie out of the shop without paying, I wouldn't be able to get off by say "Gi'uss a chance mate, you've got tons of sweeties, if me mum finds out she'll have my hide, I've only got one of them."

Maybe it's a bit of a poor show doing it in a match where the batsmen wear top hats & sip tea during the drinks break, we those old farts stopped playing ages ago.

 

[Top_Cat]

Pfft, if you try to sneak an unfair advantage and get caught, then why shouldn't you lose your wicket? If I got caught trying to sneak a sweetie out of the shop without paying, I wouldn't be able to get off by say "Gi'uss a chance mate, you've got tons of sweeties, if me mum finds out she'll have my hide, I've only got one of them."

Maybe it's a bit of a poor show doing it in a match where the batsmen wear top hats & sip tea during the drinks break, we those old farts stopped playing ages ago.

You missed my point; I'm not arguing against Mankadding someone per se. Just trying to explain why people view a Mankad as being against the spirit of the game but stealing a metre or two to make a run isn't. That, aside from the whole 'doing it behind one's back' thing, is because a wicket costs a team more than a stolen run. I know I was trash-talking Jono for a Mankad but if he was batting and stole runs in our indoor cricket scenario, I'd be trying just as hard to knock him over as if he'd Mankadded me.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm struggling to treat this as a serious question...to what extent are you talking about mankadding someone? Are you looking at trying to catch a batsman out who moves as you go into your delivery stride? Or someone who's obviously taking the piss and is 3 metres down the pitch by the time you hit the crease?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Pffh, price to pay.

I'd probably cop one in the mouth from you the first ball, but you'd be one of those guys that turns his back when going back to his mark, and as in Indoor the ball is always alive, I'd just take a run.

I love doing that, suddenly a partnership/skin of 30 becomes a 35-40.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Just looking at Kapil's dismissal of Kirsten I'm glad the rules have been changed.

 

[Smudge]

Pffh, price to pay.

I'd probably cop one in the mouth from you the first ball, but you'd be one of those guys that turns his back when going back to his mark, and as in Indoor the ball is always alive, I'd just take a run.

I love doing that, suddenly a partnership/skin of 30 becomes a 35-40.

Damn you, SOC...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Damn you, SOC...

I was amazed it was still on the market.

 

[Jono]

I'm struggling to treat this as a serious question...to what extent are you talking about mankadding someone? Are you looking at trying to catch a batsman out who moves as you go into your delivery stride? Or someone who's obviously taking the piss and is 3 metres down the pitch by the time you hit the crease?

For mine, Chennai should have been allowed to mankad Shane Warne during the last ball of the IPL final. He was half-way across the pitch before Balaji even bowled the ball.

Fair play to Warne for doing what is now within the rules, but I mean its a bit ridiculous for that to be allowed IMO.

 

[jeevan]

For mine, Chennai should have been allowed to mankad Shane Warne during the last ball of the IPL final. He was half-way across the pitch before Balaji even bowled the ball.

Fair play to Warne for doing what is now within the rules, but I mean its a bit ridiculous for that to be allowed IMO.

Shane Warne stood waay behind the bowling crease for the last ball, and did start to run before the ball was sent, but he was at the bowling crease - more or less - when the ball was delivered, except with good running momentum that was worth a few yards of distance.

Very clever move that from Warne, Balaji wouldnt have been able to Mankad him as Warne was just about _behind_ Balaji as he leapt into delivery stride.