Should Mankading law be outlawed?

[SteveNZ]

There's obviously something wrong with the rule, or the way it's interpreted or the knowledge imparted about it, when an international coach (Lehmann) says 'not out' on twitter. If I'm what I'm told is true, there is no requirement for warning and it must be before the bowling stride, then it's out - regardless of the indignation people may hold.

 

[Day Man]

There's obviously something wrong with the rule, or the way it's interpreted or the knowledge imparted about it, when an international coach (Lehmann) says 'not out' on twitter. If I'm what I'm told is true, there is no requirement for warning and it must be before the bowling stride, then it's out - regardless of the indignation people may hold.

Darren Lehmann, whilst being a player and coach of some repute, has hardly covered himself in glory on the morality front throughout his time in the public glare. Suffice to say that he's the guy you go to for technical help, not to learn what ought to be right or wrong.

 

[Red]

Should just be consider a run out. No warning. Batsmen will quickly learn.

 

[Dan]

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.

In the case of the Zimbabwe situation though, you very well may have been. Bowler slows down slightly to break the stumps for the Mankad (seriously, nobody's going to do that at full run-up pace, especially since you can't enter your delivery stride and most delivery strides start before the stumps), you still have the momentum going forward, you end up with your bat on the line when the stumps are broken. Yet, if the bowler had actually delivered the ball, your bat would have left the crease after the ball left the bowler's hand.

 

[Niall]

. No warning. Batsmen will quickly learn[/B].

Spot on.

Its not an obscure or impossible rule for batsmen to respect.

 

[Dan]

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.

1. Beamers aren't always mistakes
2. Leaving your crease 1/24th of a second early can be a mistake.

You're making a lot of assumptions for someone who admits to not have seen the dismissal. He was a couple of mm out of his ground a fraction of a second early; this isn't the Buttler case where he was yards down the pitch, flagrantly stealing metres, when Senenayake knocked the bails off.

 

[OverratedSanity]

In the case of the Zimbabwe situation though, you very well may have been. Bowler slows down slightly to break the stumps for the Mankad (seriously, nobody's going to do that at full run-up pace, especially since you can't enter your delivery stride and most delivery strides start before the stumps), you still have the momentum going forward, you end up with your bat on the line when the stumps are broken. Yet, if the bowler had actually delivered the ball, your bat would have left the crease after the ball left the bowler's hand.

Yeah this is why the mankad can be a bit dodgy. There's the potential for a bit of unfair deception on the part of the bowler.

 

[Dan]

Yeah this is why the mankad can be a bit dodgy. There's the potential for a bit of unfair deception on the part of the bowler.

Yeah, indeed. Which is why I'm pushing back against the whole "SINGLE FRAME SAYS OUT NOTHING WRONG WITH MANKAD" opinion that completely ignores the context in which that single frame occurred.

I can't think of anything worse for cricket than if people started seeing the Mankad as a legitimate dismissal tactic, and intentionally begin deceiving batsmen into being out that way. Kind of like the Andre Russell "I'm pulling out of the delivery LOLJKS I BOWLED IT" move.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

In the case of the Zimbabwe situation though, you very well may have been. Bowler slows down slightly to break the stumps for the Mankad (seriously, nobody's going to do that at full run-up pace, especially since you can't enter your delivery stride and most delivery strides start before the stumps), you still have the momentum going forward, you end up with your bat on the line when the stumps are broken. Yet, if the bowler had actually delivered the ball, your bat would have left the crease after the ball left the bowler's hand.

Nah. I make sure that I'm a half a step behind the bowler, so it's clear if he's slowing down or not - but yeah, the situation where the bowler is actively encouraging the Mankad is more of an indoor tactic than an outdoor one.

 

[Dan]

Nah. I make sure that I'm a half a step behind the bowler, so it's clear if he's slowing down or not - but yeah, the situation where the bowler is actively encouraging the Mankad is more of an indoor tactic than an outdoor one.

And FMD it'd make cricket unwatchable if deceiving a batsman into a Mankad became a genuine tactic. I'd probably give up on the sport entirely, ffs.

 

[Niall]

Yeah, indeed. Which is why I'm pushing back against the whole "SINGLE FRAME SAYS OUT NOTHING WRONG WITH MANKAD" opinion that completely ignores the context in which that single frame occurred.

I can't think of anything worse for cricket than if people started seeing the Mankad as a legitimate dismissal tactic

The Big three carve up.
Associates getting cut out of world cups and struggling for fixtures overall.
Test cricket dying on its arse with nothing been done to save it.
Match fixing.
A Zillion t20 leagues.


Its crazy the amount of criticism mankading gets when it really isn't that big of a deal whatsoever.

 

[Day Man]

And FMD it'd make cricket unwatchable if deceiving a batsman into a Mankad became a genuine tactic. I'd probably give up on the sport entirely, ffs.

That is admittedly a genuine concern. I think there needs be a limit of say three unsuccessful mankad attempts per innings, because batsmen still can't be let getting away with unfair head starts on runs.

 

[Dan]

The Big three carve up.
Associates getting cut out of world cups and struggling for fixtures overall.
Test cricket dying on its arse with nothing been done to save it.
Match fixing.
A Zillion t20 leagues.


Its crazy the amount of criticism mankading gets when it really isn't that big of a deal whatsoever.

Ahh, the good old whataboutery makes an appearance. Where's Spark?

 

[Dan]

To use your own flawed 'logic' against you, kids are starving in Africa. Who cares about the Big Three? Really isn't that big of a deal whatsoever.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There are two solutions to this imo:

1) Everyone accepts mankading as a legitimate dismissal, puts away all that nonsense spirit of cricket talk, and bowlers don't act like dicks to the non striker and only resort to mankading when the guy is actually wandering out too early too often. This is what I'd ideally like to see happen, but there's definitely potential for some ****ty behavior from the fielding team with regards to slowing down in your delivery as a firm of deception.

2) Mankading is outlawed as a dismissal but batsmen starting off early get one run short. I prefer this solution but there's fat chance of this happening since in this day and age, the front foot line may as well not exist for the on field umpire. If they're not calling no-balls, they sure as hell won't bother calling a one short. In fairness, it's probably not feasible to ask an impure to look at the bowlers landing foot, and the non striker AND judge any decision against the batsman at the strikers end a split second later.

All this just comes back to one of my biggest pet peeves in cricket today. AUTOMATE THE FRONT FOOT LINE. Gives the third umpire something to do instead of sitting on his ****ing arse all day, and solves the mankading and no ball issues all in one go.

 

[Niall]

To use your own flawed 'logic' against you, kids are starving in Africa. Who cares about the Big Three? Really isn't that big of a deal whatsoever.

But mankading is legal while I am pretty sure starving Africans is illegal.

Its really not a big deal whatsoever, the Zimbabwe lad next time will know better and not cost his side a crucial win by acting the dunce.

I think you have to keep mankading as teams will just take the piss if abolished due to "spirit of cricket" batsmen will just have to be a little more careful.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't really understand the idea that Mankading becoming commonplace would hurt the entertainment value of the sport. If Mankad became a regular form of dismissal, batsmen would just stay in their crease until the ball was bowled. Nobody would ever risk being dismissed for a few cm head start on a quick single, it would be utterly stupid.

Can't really see the grounds for complaint, you shouldn't be out of your crease until the ball is released. If you want to make it against the rules you need another punishment for leaving your crease early, and the "warning" thing doesn't really make any sense. There's nothing else in the game you're meant to get a warning from the opposition for (warnings from the umpire are another matter), and you'd need to clearly define exactly what qualifies as a warning, under what conditions they have to be given etc. No point really, just stay in your crease or get run out.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I don't really understand the idea that Mankading becoming commonplace would hurt the entertainment value of the sport. If Mankad became a regular form of dismissal, batsmen would just stay in their crease until the ball was bowled. Nobody would ever risk being dismissed for a few cm head start on a quick single, it would be utterly stupid.

Agreed, but some kind of deranged hokey-cokey resulting from a bowler trying to encourage a batsman to leave his crease early in order to gain a wicket would be bloody stupid. The balance needs to be right, and at the moment we're in some silly hybrid situation where the batsmen don't know the motivation of each bowler and thus think they can get away with stealing a march when really they shouldn't. Some clarification is required, even if that clarification is that the current law applies and a bowler won't be seen as a pariah for effecting a Mankad, and perhaps (if the current dismissal penalty still applies) then perhaps five penalty runs should be awarded to the batting team in the event of a Mankad attempt failing because the batsman never left the crease at all.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I don't necessarily see a problem with the dismissal. What I would prefer in good faith would be a bowler, when he first notices it to warn the non striker once. And then if he does it again, dismiss him. But this is not a strict rule, it's more up to the discretion of the bowler. However, mankading is very much within the law and I don't see how it is hurting the game. Firstly, it doesn't even happen all that much.

Having said that, I do think it should be called something else though. The name is horrible and it should be changed.

 

[StephenZA]

2) Mankading is outlawed as a dismissal but batsmen starting off early get one run short. I prefer this solution but there's fat chance of this happening since in this day and age, the front foot line may as well not exist for the on field umpire. If they're not calling no-balls, they sure as hell won't bother calling a one short. In fairness, it's probably not feasible to ask an impure to look at the bowlers landing foot, and the non striker AND judge any decision against the batsman at the strikers end a split second later.

All this just comes back to one of my biggest pet peeves in cricket today. AUTOMATE THE FRONT FOOT LINE. Gives the third umpire something to do instead of sitting on his ****ing arse all day, and solves the mankading and no ball issues all in one go.

I think the law needs to be changed. I`m not sure if this should be called short run or they should penalize the batsmen. This for me is very much like the no ball situation for a bowler, if the bowler is pushing the line then normally the umpire warns him and if he continues may start no-balling him, possibly with the help of the 3rd umpire. This could be similarly treated regarding the batsmen leaving his crease being penalized 5 runs, and having any runs scored of the ball not count. I think that saying its not within the umpires ability is not true. The current law regarding no-balls is correct, umpires not calling it is poor umpiring as is a differrent problem to be solved. For me the current law regarding 'mankanding' is not correct and needs to be looked at and sorted. Then a method of policing that can be decided.

The question I have with an automated front line is will India accept it?