Mankading - Why is it not within the "Spirit of the Game"?

[juro]

As others have said, the spirit of cricket is nonsense in a professional sport. The players need to abide by the written rules of the sport, not some airy fairy concept which may or may not be applied. How do you expect the umpires to behave?

 

[Burgey]

I'd rather see the bloke bowl the ball, and the batsman try to hit it. I know it's a bit staid and orthodox, but there we go.

 

[NUFAN]

Spirit of Cricket is actually a nice thing that I can live it. But, its more for cheating, or bringing the game into disripute, not taking a legitimate wicket, due to 'poor running between wickets'.

 

[nexxus]

I'd rather see the bloke bowl the ball, and the batsman try to hit it. I know it's a bit staid and orthodox, but there we go.

And it's ok if the batsman's mate is being a bit cheaty?

Know what's also staid and orthodox? Staying in your crease until after the bowler has released the ball.

 

[juro]

Just a few questions regarding Mankading.

1. Since the ball isn't bowled, is it still a dead ball? If so, how is it recorded as to when the wicket fell?
2. Is the wicket treated as a run out or a separate category? Is it allocated as a wicket to the bowler?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

If what Mathews said is right and we have no reason to not believe him then Buttler having been warned in the previous game and the one yesterday was clearly in the wrong. His fault. Just hope everyone moves on quickly.

How many warnings do you need to give before taking a wicket?

 

[Burgey]

And it's ok if the batsman's mate is being a bit cheaty?

Know what's also staid and orthodox? Staying in your crease until after the bowler has released the ball.

No it's not ok, it's just you're flat out weird if you want to see an important cricket match decided by a Mankad rather than, you know, and actual contest between bat and ball. That's all.

Be like me saying I'd like to see one of the usual sub continental suspects no balled for chucking to decide a World Cup Final.

Frankly, you'd have to be a bit of a **** to want to see that.

 

[YorksLanka]

If what Mathews said is right and we have no reason to not believe him then Buttler having been warned in the previous game and the one yesterday was clearly in the wrong. His fault. Just hope everyone moves on quickly.

How many warnings do you need to give before taking a wicket?

Well said Sir as usual, fair and balanced view from you. Simple answer, if Buttler was in his crease then he couldn't have been run out. The fact he wasn't surely must mean either he felt he could get away with it a third time, or absent mindedness on his part?

 

[Spikey]

MICHAEL VAUGHAN Run-out by Senanayake was against spirit of the game and would not have been allowed on my watch.

he would have been too busy putting out a deep point tbf

 

[nexxus]

No it's not ok, it's just you're flat out weird if you want to see an important cricket match decided by a Mankad rather than, you know, and actual contest between bat and ball. That's all.

Be like me saying I'd like to see one of the usual sub continental suspects no balled for chucking to decide a World Cup Final.

Frankly, you'd have to be a bit of a **** to want to see that.

Meh, importance is a relative thing. T20 finals are a dime a dozen, the whole thing is designed to be a spectacle anyway. At the very least it'll be memorable, which is a hell of a lot more than most of them.

 

[harsh.ag]

No it's not ok, it's just you're flat out weird if you want to see an important cricket match decided by a Mankad rather than, you know, and actual contest between bat and ball. That's all.

Be like me saying I'd like to see one of the usual sub continental suspects no balled for chucking to decide a World Cup Final.

Frankly, you'd have to be a bit of a **** to want to see that.

Don't think Mankading and calling a chuck are similar things to be appreciated at a similar level.

The bold part is the weak part of your argument. The non-striking partner trying to get an advantage diminishes the actual contest between bat and ball.

 

[hendrix]

he's not talking about that, he's talking about it from a spectator's point of view.

Some people seem to think that controversy adds to sport - I don't.

 

[harsh.ag]

Just a few questions regarding Mankading.

1. Since the ball isn't bowled, is it still a dead ball? If so, how is it recorded as to when the wicket fell?
2. Is the wicket treated as a run out or a separate category? Is it allocated as a wicket to the bowler?

1. It doesn't count as a delivery, of course. Dead ball. Cricinfo shows that if the incident happened as the bowler was about to bowl the 2nd ball of the 20th over, then it would show up as the wicket having fallen on 19.2 overs.

2. Run-out it is. Wicket not allocated to the bowler.

MICHAEL VAUGHAN Run-out by Senanayake was against spirit of the game and would not have been allowed on my watch.

he would have been too busy putting out a deep point tbf

This actually gives rise to a question: Is the fielding captain allowed to overrule a bowler's appeal? If so, why?

 

[nexxus]

There are certain events where I wouldn't wish it, because they don't need it. World Cup Final, Ashes decider, any ICC final involving SA, even the T20 WC final. IPL final, Big Bash, RamSlam, who cares, controverse away.

 

[Daemon]

Don't think Mankading and calling a chuck are similar things to be appreciated at a similar level.

The bold part is the weak part of your argument. The non-striking partner trying to get an advantage diminishes the actual contest between bat and ball.

He just said it's "not ok"..

All he's saying is that he'd rather see a match decided by bat and ball rather than someone getting mankaded or something similar.

 

[Jono]

LOL Michael Vaughan. Put more specialist sub fielders on ya mut.

 

[NUFAN]

This actually gives rise to a question: Is the fielding captain allowed to overrule a bowler's appeal? If so, why?

Spirit of the game.

 

[harsh.ag]

He just said it's "not ok"..

All he's saying is that he'd rather see a match decided by bat and ball rather than someone getting mankaded or something similar.

I appreciate his point. I would also rather see matches being decided by singles taken only when they would have been possible in absence of an early, unsportsmanlike start by the non-striker.

 

[fredfertang]

Applying and judging the laws really shouldn't be in the hands of the captains - I don't like Mankading at all but it is there in the rules, and even if Mathews chooses to give Buttler no warning (something for the umps to do imo), I really don't see how England can complain too much, but with at least two he's dead in the water and deservedly so - and as for Cook saying he'd like to think he wouldn't have done what Mathews did all I can say is can we have a new England captain please?

 

[harsh.ag]

Spirit of the game.

So, the captain is allowed to take back an appeal against a bowler's wishes?