Another Mankading

[AndyZaltzHair]

So if a bowler strays a couple of millimetres outside the line and a batsman gets out it's still a noball right? The bowler stopped in his stride and executed the run out. That's the law.. End of story. It was the perfect decision.

It did not look like that the bowler paused. He ran in and made that happen. After replaying for few times in slow mo, it looked like that the bat would have stayed inside if the bowler went into his action at the same time like he would normally do. The non striker was dragging his bat out with the motion of the bowler. It was a perfectly disguised trick by the bowler.

 

[Franco Vazquez]

I hope now we don't see this ****ty thing happening again and again in International matches.It shows that Windies youngsters were coward and afraid to lose

 

[fredfertang]

See the OP. I think I gave a fair and detailed account there.

On that basis this really shouldn't be described as mankading at all - its a pauling

 

[hendrix]

I'm right in saying you have to be through your action to run someone out at the bowler's end, don't you?

Incorrect. It's the opposite, in fact.

I don't have an issue with Mankading and the idea that a bowler has to warn a batsman to stay in his crease or be run out is nonsense.

However, I also think the wrong decision was reached here because there was absolutely zero attempt by the West Indies player to even bowl. And the Zimbabwe batsmen was a couple of millimetres the wrong side of the lline.

Or the bowler could run in to, you know, ****ing bowl rather than looking to mankad the non-striker.

Yes, I agree that on this particular occasion the actions of the bowler were pretty poor, especially as the batsman didn't appear to be deliberately leaving the crease to gain an advantage.

You do realise that if the bowler actually went into his delivery stride, the batsman would have been further outside his crease, right?

That's why the law stipulates that the bowler must do it before he begins his delivery stride. Which is 100% correct IMO.

The fact that the batsman made zero attempt to remain in his crease until the bowler delivered the ball is why he is out.

 

[Niall]

You do realise that if the bowler actually went into his delivery stride, the batsman would have been further outside his crease, right?

That's why the law stipulates that the bowler must do it before he begins his delivery stride. Which is 100% correct IMO.

The fact that the batsman made zero attempt to remain in his crease until the bowler delivered the ball is why he is out.

Exactly.

Its crazy really that all the criticism is at the West Indies bowler today, he was not the one who was breaking the rules.

Mankad is not a nice rule, but once it is in place it should be respected.

 

[Franco Vazquez]

Exactly.

Its crazy really that all the criticism is at the West Indies bowler today, he was not the one who was breaking the rules.

Mankad is not a nice rule, but once it is in place it should be respected.

Blacks aren't able to buy properties law should be respected too?

 

[SteveNZ]

Incorrect. It's the opposite, in fact.

You do realise that if the bowler actually went into his delivery stride, the batsman would have been further outside his crease, right?

That's why the law stipulates that the bowler must do it before he begins his delivery stride. Which is 100% correct IMO.

The fact that the batsman made zero attempt to remain in his crease until the bowler delivered the ball is why he is out.

The law states it must be before the delivery stride? Has this changed? I'm about the worst guy for observing the rules of the game but I was always under the impression a delivery had to have been attempted.

Whatever the rule is, there's obviously grey areas which need to be addressed. It seems to be self policing at international level because no one dare do it for sake of the media and public backlash. Not so here and at other levels.

Anyway, don't expect to see this bowler make it at a higher level. Obviously likes to take shortcuts rather than back his abilities.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Twitter reactions,

Reactions to Mankading at Under-19 World Cup: 'Can't believe what I have just seen! Embarrassing!' | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Furball]

I didn't see the game - had the batsman been taking advantage, or was this a plan?

The bowler seems to have just run up with the sole intention to mankad the batsman, and it just so happens that the batsman got things ever so slightly wrong and his bat moved from in the crease to on the line in the exact frame that the wicket was broken. It was as if the bowler had intended to do it just to piss the batsmen off and just so happened to effect a run out.

Maybe there's a context that I've missed, having only seen that actual delivery on Sky Sports News (I'd have more sympathy for the bowler if the batsmen had been ripping the piss for a few overs), but having only seen the actual delivery, the bowler's actions don't sit right with me despite me being okay with Mankading (I'd be a hypocrite not to be having done it myself in a game haha)

 

[MrPrez]

Jesus. This is frighteningly simple, Neville.

The laws of the game state that you can be run out if you leave your crease before the bowler bowls. That's simply it.

Your 'spirit of the game' drivel is just that. 'Spirit of the game' refers to when the laws of the game are arguably applicable, but not in their intended manner. Mankading is clearly endorsed by the rules. There is no debate as to whether it is within the spirit of the game when it is definitively written in the laws of the game. Your implications that accepting mankading is akin to sociopathy are ridiculous, and your comparisons to lying and adultery are strawmen.

If you're seriously going to imply that the bowler is the bad guy, rather than the batsman who is stealing metres that the laws forbid him from doing, then I'd have to question your moral codes.

 

[MrPrez]

With regards to this specific example, I haven't seen it, but one has to question why the bowler ran up with the intention of mankading the batsman. You are highly unlikely to do so unless you have noticed the batsman stealing metres before.

 

[MrPrez]

The entire problem exists because teams don't Mankad often enough. It is not at all difficult for batsmen to play within the rules but they don't because the spirit of cricket helps them in these cases.

This is the crux though. There is nothing wrong with mankading; it just feels weird because people so seldom do it. And because people don't do it, people develop an idea that it isn't done because it isn't right. Which is bollocks.

 

[Crazy Sam]

The other night when India needed 2 runs off 1 ball their non-striker was already halfway down the pitch as it was delivered. I can guarantee there would've been an uproar had Tye mankadded the non-striker. The crowd would've rioted.

Sorry but it is a **** way to win a game - especially in these circumstances where it was marginal at best. That is why the custom is to 'warn' the non striker first. The bowler should be aiming to bowl a decent ball to the guy down the other end.to win a game, not trying to pull gotcha **** like this.

 

[SteveNZ]

Jesus. This is frighteningly simple, Neville.

The laws of the game state that you can be run out if you leave your crease before the bowler bowls. That's simply it.

Your 'spirit of the game' drivel is just that. 'Spirit of the game' refers to when the laws of the game are arguably applicable, but not in their intended manner. Mankading is clearly endorsed by the rules. There is no debate as to whether it is within the spirit of the game when it is definitively written in the laws of the game. Your implications that accepting mankading is akin to sociopathy are ridiculous, and your comparisons to lying and adultery are strawmen.

If you're seriously going to imply that the bowler is the bad guy, rather than the batsman who is stealing metres that the laws forbid him from doing, then I'd have to question your moral codes.

Well surmised. So in the instance of a batsman being knocked over by a fielder and run out - ala the Elliott decision in 08 at The Oval - or when McCullum ran Murali out in CHCH celebrating Sanga's 100, the Bell run out on lunch v India or whichever example you want to point to...those aren't generally written in black and white in the rule book. So 'spirit of cricket' is evoked. Mankad, there's a clear rule to be used. If the ICC decide it's not in the spirit, they should change it.

 

[MrPrez]

The other night when India needed 2 runs off 1 ball their non-striker was already halfway down the pitch as it was delivered. I can guarantee there would've been an uproar had Tye mankadded the non-striker. The crowd would've rioted.

Sorry but it is a **** way to win a game - especially in these circumstances where it was marginal at best. That is why the custom is to 'warn' the non striker first. The bowler should be aiming to bowl a decent ball to the guy down the other end.to win a game, not trying to pull gotcha **** like this.

I agree, it's not the greatest way for a game to end. As a spectator, I'd much rather see an actual final delivery. That said, the blame would be on the non-striker for blatantly cheating, not on the bowler for acting what would have otherwise been an unfair disadvantage to his side.

 

[cnerd123]

I can only speak for myself, but I was taught as a kid to not start backing up until the bowler gets into his delivery stride, because doing so any earlier could see me getting mankaded.

I have also warned batsmen and alerted the umpires about excessive backing up, but only because I honestly thought it was expected of me to do so atleast once before I actually run someone out this way.

Seeing such strong reactions against what happened is ITSTL. My initial thoughts were that this was quite clever from the bowling side and they deserve praise for it.

 

[NZTailender]

The game favours batsmen enough as it is. Mankading should be something a bowler has in his armoury. If a batsman is ****y/dumb enough to be caught out of his crease then so be it.


Note: haven't read all of the thread yet.

 

[Prince EWS]

Mankadding is absolutely fine in general, IMO. This particular incident was more of a grey area because the batsman was duped rather than actually trying to gain an advantage, but I'm still more or less fine with it. I get the spirit of cricket argument and I think it's important as a general concept, but usually when an appeal is made to the spirit of cricket I instinctively get the feeling it's done so selectively in response to verbatim actions that don't actually seem any worse to me than the sort of actions that have become common practice.

If mankadding a batsman when he's not actually attempting to gain an unfair advantage is taboo, then why is stumping a batsman when he's not attempting to advance out of his crease not?

If claiming a catch that you know didn't carry is taboo, why is appealing for lbw when you know the batsman got an inside edge on it not?

People always have answers for these questions that they feel are obvious, so maybe it's just because I'm a bit of an oddball in how I see things sometimes, but I don't really buy any of the explanations of why these things are different.

 

[neville cardus]

I'd have more sympathy for the bowler if the batsmen had been ripping the piss for a few overs

Nope. That was Paul's first delivery with Ngarava at the non-striker's end.

 

[neville cardus]

Jesus. This is frighteningly simple, Neville.

The laws of the game state that you can be run out if you leave your crease before the bowler bowls. That's simply it.

Your 'spirit of the game' drivel is just that. 'Spirit of the game' refers to when the laws of the game are arguably applicable, but not in their intended manner. Mankading is clearly endorsed by the rules. There is no debate as to whether it is within the spirit of the game when it is definitively written in the laws of the game. Your implications that accepting mankading is akin to sociopathy are ridiculous, and your comparisons to lying and adultery are strawmen.

If you're seriously going to imply that the bowler is the bad guy, rather than the batsman who is stealing metres that the laws forbid him from doing, then I'd have to question your moral codes.

Translation: "Sportsmanship is for sissies. Decency is dead. Long live Trevor Chappell."