Another Mankading

[Spark]

Dan, to ensure smooth passage of play, we've got two options here:

(a) Let the sport respond and evolve by limiting the number of unsuccessful mankads per innings so that it still remains a legitimate mode of dismissal,

or

(b) Ban the mankad altogether, which seems to me akin to throwing away the baby with the bath water.


Decrying the mankad as a mode of dismissal by resorting to slippery slope arguments serves no end.

I'd absolutely support (b) over (a), ftr, which is just way, way, way too finicky.

 

[Day Man]

I'd absolutely support (b) over (a), ftr, which is just way, way, way too finicky.

That does bring with it the undesirable consequence of unfettered head starts by non-strikers in the absence of penalty.

Subsequently, a penalty will have to be levied to make up for the absence of the mankad, in the form of penalty runs or somesuch, which brings with it the headache of having to police each and every delivery for unfair starts.

Therefore, in my view, (b) is a much much more finicky solution than (a).

 

[Dan]

Decrying the mankad as a mode of dismissal by resorting to slippery slope arguments serves no end.

I'm not decrying it at all; much like Spark, I'm in the "correction to batsmen stealing ground" camp. In that situation, Mankads are fine. But we have to be very careful in how they're put into the laws, how the laws are interpreted, and how actions are considered within the Sprit of Cricket (however nebulous that may be) in order to avoid incentivising negative behaviours (from both batsman and bowler).

 

[Cabinet96]

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.

Nah you right. People think the reasons are obvious because of convention, nothing more.

 

[Dan]

I think the simplest solution is for match referees to enact excessive appealing fines upon it, tbh. You keep trying it when the batsman's doing the right thing? There goes 50% of your match fee for being an annoying prick.

EDIT: And, as confusing and anti-cricket convention as it may be, give the batsmen the line for benefit of the doubt on those decisions IMO (which is purely a pragmatic "don't change the way that cricket has historically worked" thing rather than it actually being a good law in and of itself).

 

[Senile Sentry]

Comparison with adultery? Lying? Jeez are these chaps literally trolling **** or what?

 

[MrPrez]

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

Is that really what you got from that? Did you even read my ****ing post?

I called your interpretation of the 'spirit of the game' drivel, not the concept itself. You are blatantly ignoring the fact that the non-striker leaving the crease early is more than just poor sportsmanship. It's flat-out illegal. You're painting the bowler as the bad guy when the batsman is the one gaining an unfair advantage by acting outside the laws of the game. It's not hard to understand.

The unsportsmanlike, indecent one is the batsman who is leaving his crease early.

 

[indiaholic]

Think it is safe to consign neville cardus to the confirmed troll bin.

 

[GIMH]

Think it is safe to consign neville cardus to the confirmed troll bin.

Nah he's not a troll.

 

[indiaholic]

Nah he's not a troll.

Going by the evidence in this thread. Nothing wrong with holding the opinion that mankading is a bit ****ish but characterizing everybody who thinks otherwise as sociopaths or Trevor Chappell is classic troll behaviour, no?

 

[neville cardus]

Equating the moral arguments behind "entering someones home against without their permission and then killing them in their sleep" with "performing an action in a cricket game that is deemed unsportsmanlike but obeys the rules of the game" sounds reasonable to me.

Look, darling. It's an analogy, not an equation. Analogies are thought experiments; equations are claims of parity. Either you don't know that, in which case I'm not going to waste any further time arguing with you, or you do, in which case you're being wilfully stupid. Either way, this performance doesn't redound much to your credit.

The sarcasm makes it even worse. Don't you think it's time you attempted one of the higher forms of irony?

 

[neville cardus]

A batsman being found outside his crease is a matter of fact, surely? If he wasn't outside his crease at the moment of the bails being flicked off, that's an incorrect visualisation of a line decision and has nothing to do with the actual validity of the type of dismissal itself.

For the umpteenth time, we're not debating the legal validity of the dismissal. What we're debating is whether or not it was unsportsmanlike to effect it.

And no (to pre-empt an argument you've mounted more than once), it is not sportsmanlike just because it falls within the rules. It's incredible how many of you have failed to wrap your heads around this very simple distinction. Laws are not the same as morals. If you want to make a case for the latter, it won't do to cite the former.

 

[GIMH]

Going by the evidence in this thread. Nothing wrong with holding the opinion that mankading is a bit ****ish but characterizing everybody who thinks otherwise as sociopaths or Trevor Chappell is classic troll behaviour, no?

A troll is looking for a reaction, rather than posting a strong opinion.

 

[neville cardus]

Comparison with adultery? Lying? Jeez are these chaps literally trolling **** or what?

You, too. Wander on down to Wikipedia and learn what an "analogy" is. It's painful to have to argue with people who haven't the barest grasp on how logical arguments are constructed.

 

[indiaholic]

A troll is looking for a reaction, rather than posting a strong opinion.

Calling people sociopaths is a strong opinion?

 

[indiaholic]

Plus the conviction that he is a moral superior to plebs who think a form of dismissal in a sport is okay.

 

[neville cardus]

I called your interpretation of the 'spirit of the game' drivel, not the concept itself.

Okay. Furnish me a few examples, other than the one below, of what you would consider unsporting conduct.

The unsportsmanlike, indecent one is the batsman who is leaving his crease early.

Why? That doesn't seem to meet your criteria. There's no rule against leaving your crease early.

There is, however, a rule against hitting the ball in the air and getting caught, or missing the ball and getting bowled. Perhaps you'd care to explain why, on your curious definition, this conduct isn't "unsportsmanlike" or "indecent"?

(Those of you who have just returned from Wikipedia, newly enlightened as to the definition of "analogy," might care to know that what I've attempted here is a reductio ad absurdum, whereby one demonstrates the falsity of an argument by showing that a ridiculous result follows from it.)

 

[neville cardus]

characterizing everybody who thinks otherwise as sociopaths

Again, not what I said. Not remotely. I described a certain brand of logic -- that which takes everything legal also to be moral -- as having a very close resemblance to a line of thinking I've heard from sociopaths; also, while we're at it, from loan sharks and lobbyists. That's just a factual statement. It's 100 per cent true, whether it offends your sensibilities or not.

It's also why I find that thinking so repulsive.

 

[neville cardus]

Calling people sociopaths is a strong opinion?

Whom did I call a sociopath? You'll find the answer is no-one.

 

[neville cardus]

Plus the conviction that he is a moral superior to plebs who think a form of dismissal in a sport is okay.

Yet again, not what I said.