Should Mankading law be outlawed?

[Franco Vazquez]

Do you people think that this ****ty rule should be outlawed? In that sense Every bouncer should be no ball without any warning from the umpire.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

No. Batsmen shouldn't be stealing runs FFS. What's the payback if they're halfway down the wicket. I have no sympathy for the batsman who's run out backing up too far.

 

[Franco Vazquez]

No. Batsmen shouldn't be stealing runs FFS. What's the payback if they're halfway down the wicket. I have no sympathy for the batsman who's run out backing up too far.

But warning should be given first.

 

[Stefan9]

No but it should be changed. Should be penalty runs and not an out imho.

 

[Niall]

But warning should be given first.

Why?

Maybe the guys who are mankaded should learn and respect the rules instead. They have been around for bloody ages.

 

[Franco Vazquez]

So a batsmen shouldn't be able to steal runs but a bowler should be able to break the head of Batsmen(bouncers)?

 

[hendrix]

what?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

But warning should be given first.

Why should they? Batsmen should be able to adapt their running to fit the laws of the game.

If you don't like the penalty, perhaps the penalty should be changed - a short run if you leave your crease before the bowler hits the delivery stride, or 5 penalty runs as Stefan has suggested.

 

[MrPrez]

Agree with Heath and Niall. It's utter bollocks that there should be any leeway in this regard. It's completely unfair for the batsman to gain any ground at all while backing up; why should there be a warning from the bowling side? There is absolutely no way the batsman can't wait until the bowler bowls before leaving the crease. If you leave the crease before the bowler bowls, you're either trying to steal an advantage, or are unknowingly gaining yourself one anyway.

Mankading is against the spirit of the game? No. Stealing metres is against the spirit of the game, and if you're going to cheat the rules, don't get pissed when someone mankads you.

 

[MrPrez]

So a batsmen shouldn't be able to steal runs but a bowler should be able to break the head of Batsmen(bouncers)?

This is probably the worst logic I have ever read on this website.

Stealing runs is against the laws of the game. Bowling bouncers isn't.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

In a tight match situation when batting (and as a number 11 anyway so perhaps not the best judge), I always used to run in with the bowler so that I would be at a reasonable pace when he hits the crease, but I would never be at risk of a mankad. Also, me running in alongside him could put the bowler off his stride somewhat. No one ever complained.

More a tactic I used in indoor cricket, but I have used it outdoor in tight limited over situations.

Gains a legitimate distance advantage by the time the ball reaches the batsman, but no risk of mankad.

 

[Stefan9]

This is probably the worst logic I have ever read on this website.

Stealing runs is against the laws of the game. Bowling bouncers isn't.

Bowling beamers is but the bowlers get a second chance before he gets removed from the attack. The same should apply to mankad.

 

[SteveNZ]

But warning should be given first.

Consider the law and the start of the game a warning, just like any other rule of the game. It's not like a beamer where you've possibly not done it on purpose.

Batsmen get enough advantages as it is. Stay in your crease. Remove this spirit of cricket BS too like it hasn't died a death along with VHS and bell bottoms. If you want to be a gentleman, there's plenty of other ways to achieve it.

 

[hendrix]

Bowling beamers is but the bowlers get a second chance before he gets removed from the attack. The same should apply to mankad.

bowling is not batting.

 

[Franco Vazquez]

Agree with Heath and Niall. It's utter bollocks that there should be any leeway in this regard. It's completely unfair for the batsman to gain any ground at all while backing up; why should there be a warning from the bowling side? There is absolutely no way the batsman can't wait until the bowler bowls before leaving the crease. If you leave the crease before the bowler bowls, you're either trying to steal an advantage, or are unknowingly gaining yourself one anyway.

Mankading is against the spirit of the game? No. Stealing metres is against the spirit of the game, and if you're going to cheat the rules, don't get pissed when someone mankads you.

It is equivalent to scoring off a dropped ball

 

[Furball]

So a batsmen shouldn't be able to steal runs but a bowler should be able to break the head of Batsmen(bouncers)?

Bowling head high beamers is illegal and will get a bowler quickly removed from the attack by the umpire if he persists in doing so.

I still can't get my head around the idea that batsmen should be warned before being Mankaded though. If a batsman drags himself too far forward to a spinner the wicket keeper doesn't stand there going "I say old chap, better not do that again or I'll stump you." He just completes the stumping (unless his name is Matthew Wade) and the batsman's on his way (or if Wade's behind the stumps, running byes.)

 

[Neil Pickup]

If a batsman drags himself too far forward to a spinner the wicket keeper doesn't stand there going "I say old chap, better not do that again or I'll stump you." He just completes the stumping (unless his name is Matthew Wade) and the batsman's on his way (or if Wade's behind the stumps, running byes.)

I've done that before. Was the first ball of a charity match, though. We decided it was going to be three strikes and you're out after that point if you weren't a regular cricketer...

 

[MrPrez]

Bowling beamers is but the bowlers get a second chance before he gets removed from the attack. The same should apply to mankad.

No it shouldn't. Beamers are mistakes. The ball slips out by accident. Leaving your crease early is not the same level of thing. You can't pretend that the ball slipping out of your hand by mistake is comparable to leaving your crease early.

It is equivalent to scoring off a dropped ball

The nature of a dropped ball is that it isn't delivered, hence the impossibility of scoring off it. If you're arguing that the ball is as much in play when a mankad takes place as opposed to when a ball is dropped by the bowler, the laws of cricket simply disagree with you in saying that they are comparable. If the bowler drops the ball, noone gains an advantage from that passage of play. If the batsman leaves his crease early, he is gaining an unfair advantage, and the bowler is well within his rights to react.

 

[Prince EWS]

So a batsmen shouldn't be able to steal runs but a bowler should be able to break the head of Batsmen(bouncers)?

Yes.

 

[Athlai]

The beamer comparison is terrible. You are taken out of the attack for a beamer because it's both an illegal and dangerous delivery. The only danger of a mankad is neville cardus' heart exploding in rage.