The Mankad

[SillyCowCorner1]

 

[the big bambino]

Ha I remember being mankaded by a bloke who swung his arm over quickly and past his release point. I was pissed with myself as I didn't particularly like the bloke and he got one over me. Have to say it was the best disguised mankad attempt i ever copped. Interesting to read *****'s post about post release mankad attempts which would now stop that sort of thing, if I've read it correctly. Burgey's point about fakers has an example in my playing experience too (indoor, yes, but it is transferable to real cricket) when one bowler took an age to get through his overs as he must have tried about 10 mankads in each. Now he was a bad faker and the real irritation was his time wasting as well as inciting people to want to kill him. If faking ever became a problem in cricket then I suppose you could limit mankad attempts just like they limit bumpers. Say one an over. Boy that would put an onus on a bowler to use it wisely.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ha I remember being mankaded by a bloke who swung his arm over quickly and past his release point. I was pissed with myself as I didn't particularly like the bloke and he got one over me. Have to say it was the best disguised mankad attempt i ever copped. Interesting to read *****'s post about post release mankad attempts which would now stop that sort of thing, if I've read it correctly. Burgey's point about fakers has an example in my playing experience too (indoor, yes, but it is transferable to real cricket) when one bowler took an age to get through his overs as he must have tried about 10 mankads in each. Now he was a bad faker and the real irritation was his time wasting as well as inciting people to want to kill him. If faking ever became a problem in cricket then I suppose you could limit mankad attempts just like they limit bumpers. Say one an over. Boy that would put an onus on a bowler to use it wisely.

Can't see how that could possibly work. If the bowler used his mankad attempts up in the over then the batsman has a free pass to cheat as much as he wants for the rest of the over.

 

[Burgey]

yeah, it goes too far the other way, as well meaning as the idea may be.

 

[Burgey]

I remember a few years ago a brawl almost broke out at Action Indoor sports over a Mankad during a game of Indoor. Some people really, really don't like it.

it seems to be an almost accepted thing in indoor cricket, or at least I thought it was certainly way more widespread even years ago when I played.

 

[thierry henry]

it seems to be an almost accepted thing in indoor cricket, or at least I thought it was certainly way more widespread even years ago when I played.

Yeah it's more like some guys do it quite often and some never, but you always need to watch for it. Occasionally you'll get called a dickhead for doing it, but everyone knows it's part of the game.

 

[Daemon]

There’s so much repetition going on here. I see two main arguments:

a. whether batsmen should be watching the ball right out of the hand until it’s been released and is almost halfway down the pitch; and
b. do the rules currently allow for deception (e.g. oman/ashwin)

My views are no for both. However instead of what ***** has been taught, I’d much rather the ICC tell umpires to be more strict and use their judgement in cases where the bowler is delaying or faking a run out. Just set the threshold for what’s considered faking lower than what it is now.

Once a few high profile fake mankad attempts are blocked, the momentum that this tactic seems to be gaining will fall.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I'm the bat floating in mid-air

 

[Daemon]

It’s clearly strapped to his back like a sword

 

[jimmy101]

If we manage to reach a consensus here it would be one small step for man, one giant leap for mankad.

 

[jimmy101]

it seems to be an almost accepted thing in indoor cricket, or at least I thought it was certainly way more widespread even years ago when I played.

So did I. Might have just been a bad time for it to happen.

 

[Burgey]

re the cartoon - he's been run-through with that bat. The other frustrated batsman was trying to throw it at umpire *****, but sadly for the world he missed and instead speared his unfortunate batting partner.

 

[SteveNZ]

Just to offer my two cents that will create no stir and quite probably repeat what everyone else has said, I completely dislike the whole prevailing mentality that the batsmen can do whatever the f*ck they want in terms of backing up but it's ungentlemanly if a bowler does anything, even if that is to warn them or say 'get your arse back'....but nor do I want a situation where Mankading becomes a viable wicket taking option and is consistently on a bowler's mind.

So the current methodology actually probably serves us OK, given the infrequency of its discussion and occurance. But maybe the new generation care little for norms and they might start indulging in it more? We'll need to wait and see.

 

[SteveNZ]

it seems to be an almost accepted thing in indoor cricket, or at least I thought it was certainly way more widespread even years ago when I played.

Yeah, it certainly was when I was playing. I'd hate that to become the norm. Indoor cricket has that niggly no holds barred sort of mentality, they can keep it their way.

 

[the big bambino]

If we manage to reach a consensus here it would be one small step for man, one giant leap for mankad.

As long as you don't cross the line.

 

[Red]

For the 4,825th time this thread, we are all aware of that. What was being advocated by hb and others is something quite different. Moreover, there are plainly examples where cheating clowns such as Ashwin have been allowed to get away with something quite contrary to the rule you've cited. You're the one with the glib "Meh, just follow the rule" bullshit in here, but you don't seem to want it to apply to those effecting the run out, because somehow you're of the misguided view a non-striker batsman should habitually watch the ball beyond the point where it's out of the bowler's hand.

“Just follow the rule bullshit”? Lol

There’s literally only one way this law can be properly applied. And that’s for the onus to be on the non-striker to not get run out when backing up. It’s absolutely black and white.

There’s no grey. Anything other than actually following and applying the rule properly is stupid bullshit.

 

[TheJediBrah]

“Just follow the rule bullshit”? Lol

There’s literally only one way this law can be properly applied. And that’s for the onus to be on the non-striker to not get run out when backing up. It’s absolutely black and white.

There’s no grey. Anything other than actually following and applying the rule properly is stupid bullshit.

So you think the bowler should be able to pretend to bowl and fake out the batsman? And that the rule should be changed to allow it? Because that is what we're discussing here

 

[cnerd123]

So you think the bowler should be able to pretend to bowl and fake out the batsman? And that the rule should be changed to allow it? Because that is what we're discussing here

wut

i've skipped all the posts since my last one. Is that where the discussion is now?

 

[cnerd123]

40ppp sucks. Default setting is the best.

this is clearly the worst opinion of the thread, by far

 

[honestbharani]

For the 4,825th time this thread, we are all aware of that. What was being advocated by hb and others is something quite different. Moreover, there are plainly examples where cheating clowns such as Ashwin have been allowed to get away with something quite contrary to the rule you've cited. You're the one with the glib "Meh, just follow the rule" bullshit in here, but you don't seem to want it to apply to those effecting the run out, because somehow you're of the misguided view a non-striker batsman should habitually watch the ball beyond the point where it's out of the bowler's hand.

Well, even forgetting the rest of the absolute untrue BS drivel that was your post, who here has even suggested the bolded part?