Another Mankading

[neville cardus]

I seem to be the only one in my circle of friends who's following the Under-19 World Cup, but in retrospect I'd rather have watched something else today. It'll take some gargling to lave the sour taste from my mouth.

About ten minutes ago, with three runs needed off the final over, Zimbabwe had a wicket in hand, and were looking good for the win. Keemo Paul ran in -- but not to bowl; he didn't even enter his delivery stride. Instead he trotted on through the crease, snapped off a bail and launched an appeal.

There had been no prior warning, and Richard Ngarava had been taking no chances with his backing up. This was a shot in the dark. The third umpire found that his bat was on the line when the wicket was broken (although a missing frame might have shown otherwise), and an excellent game of cricket ended in the sheerest ignominy.

The Caribbean youngsters made a sorry spectacle even sorrier with their frenzied celebrations. At least their coach had the decency to look embarrassed.

 

[neville cardus]

On the plus-side, I did get to see Wesley Madhevere for the first time. At fifteen years of age, he's the youngest Zimbabwean in this competition, and probably shorter than James Taylor, but I'd back him before any of his peers to make it to the Big Time. I thoroughly enjoyed his ten overs of off-spin, but it was his 21 off 25 balls, retrieving a difficult situation, which will live longest in the memory. He glanced in-ducking yorkers down to third man, and showed rare composure against the raw pace of Alzarri Joseph. He got out protecting the tail.

Remember the name. This kid's the mustard.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Incidentally the original mankading happened 35 years ago yesterday

 

[Senile Sentry]

Laws exist for a reason. Deal with it.

I just don't understand this convenient "spirit of cricket" blah blah. How about applying 'spirit of cricket' to a decision where a straight drive past the bowler just grazes his hands and slams into the stumps with the hapless runner out of the crease?

Respect the laws.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Incidentally the original mankading happened 35 years ago yesterday

Nope, that was the infamous under arm incident. The original Mankading happened in 1947.

 

[sledger]

The Caribbean youngsters made a sorry spectacle even sorrier with their frenzied celebrations. At least their coach had the decency to look embarrassed.

And thus concluded the tale of the first Jamaican bobsled team. Gone but not forgotten, forever in our hearts.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Nope, that was the infamous under arm incident. The original Mankading happened in 1947.

Yeah right,

Mankad incident 13 dec 1947
Underarm incident 1 feb 1981

 

[neville cardus]

I just don't understand this convenient "spirit of cricket" blah blah.

I'm not in the least surprised.

How about applying 'spirit of cricket' to a decision where a straight drive past the bowler just grazes his hands and slams into the stumps with the hapless runner out of the crease?

How on earth could we do that? Who's violated the spirit there?

 

[Senile Sentry]

I'm not in the least surprised.



How on earth could we do that? Who's violated the spirit there?

Please "define" this spirit and how it can override cricketing laws?

I think any further conversation can happen only once we do that.

 

[cnerd123]

I thought the laws said you need to warn the batsman first?

 

[neville cardus]

Please "define" this spirit and how it can override cricketing laws?

I think any further conversation can happen only once we do that.

Then this conversation will have to end. I find I'm extremely suspicious of people whose moral codes require codification.

 

[neville cardus]

I thought the laws said you need to warn the batsman first?

Unfortunately not. That's just what decent people do.

 

[Senile Sentry]

I thought the laws said you need to warn the batsman first?

Mere convention. No need.

 

[hendrix]

Unfortunately not. That's just what decent people do.

Do you also think the batsman should warn the bowler that he's attempting to take a shorter run?

Or that a batsman should warn a bowler that he's going to charge down the wicket? Or play a reverse sweep?

 

[hendrix]

Please "define" this spirit and how it can override cricketing laws?

If a cricketing law is unfair (e.g. bowling underarm) then that law should change.

Mankading is not unfair as all the batsman is required to do is remain in his crease until the bowler delivers the ball.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Then this conversation will have to end. I find I'm extremely suspicious of people whose moral codes require codification.

Respect your views but disagree. The very reason why codifications came into existence was to sort out the ambiguities in what constitutes morality and make them enforceable.

You cannot thrust or police 'morality' upon others, But you can do with laws. Hence laws > morality.

 

[hendrix]

no, I disagree entirely there. Laws are meant to reflect morality. When they do not, they must be changed.

 

[Senile Sentry]

no, I disagree entirely there. Laws are meant to reflect morality. When they do not, they must be changed.

I am sorry but where did I say laws aren't reflecting morality? Laws are moral codes which are palatable to the majority at the time of their codification of course. And with any other thing in the universe things change with time. But the morality associated with Mankading, at least the majority opinion about it, doesn't warrant a change in the law. There was a debate during Senanayake's dismissal of Joe Root some time back. You don't know the rules? You pay. You know the rules and don't agree with it? Then appeal to the authorities.

 

[hendrix]

But the morality associated with Mankading, at least the majority opinion about it, doesn't warrant a change in the law. .

agreed. Nothing immoral about mankading.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would be so embarrassed to be one of those West Indians

but yeah how hard is it to stay in your crease until the bowler's bowling the ball ffs