The Mankad

[jimmy101]

I just feel the length of a cricket game would be extended to a ridiculous amount if we allowed for similar rules as a baseball game. One has on average what, 100 pitches thrown in it? As opposed to 600 balls bowled in an ODI

True, but a comparison between mankading & stealing bases is still valid as they're both centred around the same idea.

 

[honestbharani]

The point is no bowler is gonna Mankad if the batsman is still in the crease as the ball is delivered. Most of these incidents happen only because the bowler notices the batsman moving out early. Another simple fact that seems to be overlooked.

 

[ankitj]

Totally. But you can begin that run as soon as the expected delivery occurs. If the bowler holds it past that, it should be a dead ball.

What's the problem with batsmen waiting till they see the ball released in the air and then take off?

 

[Burgey]

Fair enough then how about a run penalty for a failed mankad? I mean it'd be punishing (unsuccessful) genuine attempts - which isn't ideal, but puts a price on the bowler's decision.

I basically think if you try it and fail you should never be allowed to play again.

Or be subjected to counting all the idiotic, passive-aggressive emojis in HBs posts, which would be just as career-ending.

 

[Daemon]

What's the problem with batsmen waiting till they see the ball released in the air and then take off?

Would involve most people changing the way they play the game. Most cricketers don't watch it leave the hand and watch their partner instead while timing leaving the crease with the bowler. This adds an extra step plus head movement which may or may not be a big deal. It could be a big change for some players especially in longer versions of the game. It could affect their running because they have to focus on something else then quickly switch to thinking about stealing a run etc. It could even be dangerous if the ball is belted straight back at you. Or it could just be easy as **** to do and not a biggie.

I think another concern burgey has is that if you remove the part in the law about when the ball is "expected to be released", bowlers can exploit that and try to fake out players who's momentum while backing up might take them out of the crease even when the bowler fails to release the ball. To reward such play with a wicket for that sort of minor, kinda non cricketing related error from a batsmen is not a great look at all imo.

I suppose there could be a hybrid of the rule whereby despite being black and white, the umpires still have some sort of discretion to prevent fake outs.

 

[honestbharani]

I basically think if you try it and fail you should never be allowed to play again.

Or be subjected to counting all the idiotic, passive-aggressive emojis in HBs posts, which would be just as career-ending.

Doesn't end your idiotic diatribe of posts in this thread, so I won't worry too much about it. Then again, they may see sense unlike you in this thread.

 

[honestbharani]

Would involve most people changing the way they play the game. Most cricketers don't watch it leave the hand and watch their partner instead while timing leaving the crease with the bowler. This adds an extra step plus head movement which may or may not be a big deal. It could be a big change for some players especially in longer versions of the game. It could affect their running because they have to focus on something else then quickly switch to thinking about stealing a run etc. It could even be dangerous if the ball is belted straight back at you. Or it could just be easy as **** to do and not a biggie.

I think another concern burgey has is that if you remove the part in the law about when the ball is "expected to be released", bowlers can exploit that and try to fake out players who's momentum while backing up might take them out of the crease even when the bowler fails to release the ball. To reward such play with a wicket for that sort of minor, kinda non cricketing related error from a batsmen is not a great look at all imo.

I suppose there could be a hybrid of the rule whereby despite being black and white, the umpires still have some sort of discretion to prevent fake outs.

First of all, I like how you just assume you can speak for "most" cricketers. I don't think it is true at all. And even assuming it is true (and it is not), its not that difficult of an aspect to change. And no one is looking for laws that enable more fake outs, juz better understanding of what run out at non-strikers' end actually means. ***** already pointed out existing sections under which fake outs from bowlers can be handled. Law being black and white would actually help the non-strikers a lot more and prevent this from happening. I am bloody sure the percentage of such dismissals will come down drastically if they can actually make it clear the non-striker has to have something behind the crease till the ball is delivered.

 

[Burgey]

Daemon summing things up beautifully here. Whereas HB is still HBing it up, unfortunately.

 

[jimmy101]

Daemon summing things up beautifully here. Whereas HB is still HBing it up, unfortunately.

I'm surprised you haven't been outsourcing this one to TBT mate.

 

[Burgey]

They’re still on holidays over the summer period. I’m a benevolent employer and allow them an extended break.

 

[Daemon]

First of all, I like how you just assume you can speak for "most" cricketers. I don't think it is true at all. And even assuming it is true (and it is not), its not that difficult of an aspect to change. And no one is looking for laws that enable more fake outs, juz better understanding of what run out at non-strikers' end actually means. ***** already pointed out existing sections under which fake outs from bowlers can be handled. Law being black and white would actually help the non-strikers a lot more and prevent this from happening. I am bloody sure the percentage of such dismissals will come down drastically if they can actually make it clear the non-striker has to have something behind the crease till the ball is delivered.

I'm certain most cricketers don't watch it out the hand all the time. Maybe when they're worried about reading the ball or something but I don't know how to tell you this without sounding very TJBish but it's definitely a minority who watch the ball out the hand.

As for whether people can adapt quickly to it, I don't have an answer. I've outlined potential concerns above, but for some it could be easy. Personally I think I'd forget and stop watching after like 10 balls, but that doesn't matter because I'd be out by the 5th.

 

[jimmy101]

They’re still on holidays over the summer period. I’m a benevolent employer and allow them an extended break.

Nice. Might have to update my resume here.

And here I was thinking you dissolved the group after they threatened to unionize

 

[cnerd123]

The reason the law is worded this way is to make it easy for players, umpires and officials to prevent fake-out style Mankads, whilst still allowing the bowler to run-out the non-striking batsman essentially any time till the ball is bowled.

By changing the wording in the way that is being suggested, you are making the fake-out style Mankad more of a possibility.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Who knows. What matters is that the custodians of the game - people who spend their lives studying, administrating and reviewing the laws - felt that a fake-out Mankad is 'just not cricket', and hence worded the law this way. In order for it to change, their views on this topic will need to change.

You can debate this till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that this is why it is this way.

Baseball and stealing bases is a good analogy for cricket. My thoughts are that in baseball there are 4 bases, a run is worth significantly more in cricket, and there are more 'outs' in a game. So the action of stealing a base is both inherently easier and more valuable that a non-striker backing up, and therefore it makes sense to allow for the pitching side to dupe the batting side to steal a base in order to effect an out, whereas that doesn't make sense in Cricket.

The Mankad law as it stands is as good as it's ever been, but it's not perfect. None of the Laws are, and that's why they're constantly revised. I don't think revising it towards allowing bowlers to trick non-striking batsmen into getting Mankaded is the direction the MCC/ICC wants to go.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Just make some technology where the non-striker's stumps are buried in the ground then shoot up as soon as the batsman leaves their crease. Please donate to my Patreon so I can fund this idea.

 

[TheJediBrah]

First of all, I like how you just assume you can speak for "most" cricketers. I don't think it is true at all. And even assuming it is true (and it is not), its not that difficult of an aspect to change. And no one is looking for laws that enable more fake outs, juz better understanding of what run out at non-strikers' end actually means. ***** already pointed out existing sections under which fake outs from bowlers can be handled. Law being black and white would actually help the non-strikers a lot more and prevent this from happening. I am bloody sure the percentage of such dismissals will come down drastically if they can actually make it clear the non-striker has to have something behind the crease till the ball is delivered.

Except that it definitely is, as anyone who has played or paid sufficient attention to any moderate level of cricket will tell you

 

[honestbharani]

I'm certain most cricketers don't watch it out the hand all the time. Maybe when they're worried about reading the ball or something but I don't know how to tell you this without sounding very TJBish but it's definitely a minority who watch the ball out the hand.

As for whether people can adapt quickly to it, I don't have an answer. I've outlined potential concerns above, but for some it could be easy. Personally I think I'd forget and stop watching after like 10 balls, but that doesn't matter because I'd be out by the 5th.

A very good reason to not say things then.


And no, I think many batsmen do watch the ball especially in the longer formats as it will help them work out few things for themselves when they are on strike as well as help out their partner at the other end. Being a person who was run out this way very early in my school team career, I have almost always ensured I only leave the crease after the ball is bowled and I know almost everyone else I have played with/against were like that too. Maybe around the slog overs when you are looking to run for everything, it went out of the window but by that time, you are prepared to be run out anyways.

And at Burgey still posting here as if anyone cares about his whinging stupid senseless posts on this topic.

 

[honestbharani]

The reason the law is worded this way is to make it easy for players, umpires and officials to prevent fake-out style Mankads, whilst still allowing the bowler to run-out the non-striking batsman essentially any time till the ball is bowled.

By changing the wording in the way that is being suggested, you are making the fake-out style Mankad more of a possibility.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Who knows. What matters is that the custodians of the game - people who spend their lives studying, administrating and reviewing the laws - felt that a fake-out Mankad is 'just not cricket', and hence worded the law this way. In order for it to change, their views on this topic will need to change.

You can debate this till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that this is why it is this way.

Baseball and stealing bases is a good analogy for cricket. My thoughts are that in baseball there are 4 bases, a run is worth significantly more in cricket, and there are more 'outs' in a game. So the action of stealing a base is both inherently easier and more valuable that a non-striker backing up, and therefore it makes sense to allow for the pitching side to dupe the batting side to steal a base in order to effect an out, whereas that doesn't make sense in Cricket.

The Mankad law as it stands is as good as it's ever been, but it's not perfect. None of the Laws are, and that's why they're constantly revised. I don't think revising it towards allowing bowlers to trick non-striking batsmen into getting Mankaded is the direction the MCC/ICC wants to go.

I agree but you also have to allow for the fact that batsmen get run out this way after the bowler sees them doing it a few times. Which is when the definition of fake out becomes difficult, as it is almost impossible to actually "prove" intent. For example, the intercepting the field rule has become more black and white now and I feel the game is better for it. I am sure if they wanted, the MCC/ICC can rewrite this law to be even more black and white whilst still provisioning for handling fake outs.

 

[honestbharani]

Except that it definitely is, as anyone who has played or paid sufficient attention to any moderate level of cricket will tell you

And we go back to the "have you played cricket" responses again. Its just such a kiddish thing to go back to when you have no point.

 

[jimmy101]

Just make some technology where the non-striker's stumps are buried in the ground then shoot up as soon as the batsman leaves their crease. Please donate to my Patreon so I can fund this idea.

Some kind of stumps toaster would work, minus the heating elements.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Actually I would add more heating elements