The Mankad

[jimmy101]

Skewer a few pieces of chicken on there & we've got lunch for the day sorted as well.

 

[Smudge]

Imagine how Vinoo himself feels!

I suspect he doesn't feel much at all. And hasn't done so for the last 41 years.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

So's your face

 

[cnerd123]

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.

That's why the law is worded this way? The umpires get to determine if the bowler held on to the ball beyond a reasonable point or not. If you change it to say a non-striker can be runout at any point till the ball is released, then there is no way to actually stop the fake-out. That becomes completely legal, by law. You would then need to add in extra lines to the law to clarify for how long a bowler can hold on to the ball after finishing his action before he can no longer run out the non-striker, and that makes the law and enforcing it more complex, not easier.

The ICC and MCC always want to revise laws to make them clearer and simpler. If there is a better way to word this law, they will do it eventually. Right now, what we have is the best version we've ever had of this law.

 

[Burgey]

Sad that ***** has had to resort to very out of character reasonable posting here and HB still doesn’t get the point.

 

[honestbharani]

So's your face

That's why the law is worded this way? The umpires get to determine if the bowler held on to the ball beyond a reasonable point or not. If you change it to say a non-striker can be runout at any point till the ball is released, then there is no way to actually stop the fake-out. That becomes completely legal, by law. You would then need to add in extra lines to the law to clarify for how long a bowler can hold on to the ball after finishing his action before he can no longer run out the non-striker, and that makes the law and enforcing it more complex, not easier.

The ICC and MCC always want to revise laws to make them clearer and simpler. If there is a better way to word this law, they will do it eventually. Right now, what we have is the best version we've ever had of this law.

Yes but making it till the point of "actual" release of the ball removes the ambiguity for the non-striker. He knows he has to stay inside till the ball is bowled. Beyond that, the umpire can use his own judgement, as he is supposed to, today, to decide on whether the bowler is deliberately running in and trying to hoodwink the non-striker to run him out and you can simply add additional and hopefully more severe penalties for that. I mean, the fielding fake out law is so because a batsman cannot always have their eyes on the ball fully "while" running. But the intent of this is to ensure the non-striker does not gain an unfair advantage "before" the ball is even bowled. I feel its utterly ridiculous if a batsman complains about being told to watch the bowler as he is bowling, right next to him.

FWIW, I feel it might even help them with DRS decisions, if he can figure out which side the shine is etc as the ball is bowled.

 

[honestbharani]

Sad that ***** has had to resort to very out of character reasonable posting here and HB still doesn’t get the point.

Sad that Burgey has to post same stupid stuff that adds nothing to the thread, and has no point.

 

[jimmy101]

So's your face

And How Long is a Chinaman.

 

[ankitj]

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.

Problem with this law is that it is probably the only law that depends not on technicality (which can be objectively determined) but on intent (which leaves room for lot of moral wanking). Look at the rule for run outs when ball is struck back and bowler gets their fingers on it before it strikes the wicket. There is no role of intent there, if you technically touched the ball you are assumed to have attempted a run out. I have played cricket, not at very high grade but learning about this particular aspect doesn't need you to play high level cricket. And I have always waited to see the ball released in the air before taking off. It's my second nature. It doesn't affect anything.

I am OK with the your suggestion of umpires exercising discretion. But I kinda get bored of all the discussion of ethics of mankading. If batsmen want an advantage, they must accept the risk.

 

[Daemon]

That's why the law is worded this way? The umpires get to determine if the bowler held on to the ball beyond a reasonable point or not. If you change it to say a non-striker can be runout at any point till the ball is released, then there is no way to actually stop the fake-out. That becomes completely legal, by law. You would then need to add in extra lines to the law to clarify for how long a bowler can hold on to the ball after finishing his action before he can no longer run out the non-striker, and that makes the law and enforcing it more complex, not easier.

The ICC and MCC always want to revise laws to make them clearer and simpler. If there is a better way to word this law, they will do it eventually. Right now, what we have is the best version we've ever had of this law.

I have never agreed more with a ***** post.

 

[Daemon]

That's why the law is worded this way? The umpires get to determine if the bowler held on to the ball beyond a reasonable point or not. If you change it to say a non-striker can be runout at any point till the ball is released, then there is no way to actually stop the fake-out. That becomes completely legal, by law. You would then need to add in extra lines to the law to clarify for how long a bowler can hold on to the ball after finishing his action before he can no longer run out the non-striker, and that makes the law and enforcing it more complex, not easier.

The ICC and MCC always want to revise laws to make them clearer and simpler. If there is a better way to word this law, they will do it eventually. Right now, what we have is the best version we've ever had of this law.

I have never agreed more with a ***** post.

 

[Burgey]

Good to see both your personalities feel the same way

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's why the law is worded this way? The umpires get to determine if the bowler held on to the ball beyond a reasonable point or not. If you change it to say a non-striker can be runout at any point till the ball is released, then there is no way to actually stop the fake-out. That becomes completely legal, by law. You would then need to add in extra lines to the law to clarify for how long a bowler can hold on to the ball after finishing his action before he can no longer run out the non-striker, and that makes the law and enforcing it more complex, not easier.

The ICC and MCC always want to revise laws to make them clearer and simpler. If there is a better way to word this law, they will do it eventually. Right now, what we have is the best version we've ever had of this law.

It's actually a very well written law as it stands. If the umpires officiating the mankad fake-outs got the decisions right per the law and they'd have been given not out then this controversy would probably never have arisen. All the suggestions in this thread to change it from Red Hill, HB and co. would make it so much worse and are completely unecessary regardless.

 

[ankitj]

I think the bowlers should receive coaching on Mankading. Such an under-exploited opportunity in Cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think the bowlers should receive coaching on Mankading. Such an under-exploited opportunity in Cricket.

If batsmen are going to cheat by backing up too early (which definitely happens, see Buttler) then absolutely they should.

 

[cnerd123]

I think the bowlers should receive coaching on Mankading. Such an under-exploited opportunity in Cricket.

as I said earlier, any modern-day coach worth his salt should be teaching kids to not leave their crease until they're certain the ball has been bowled. That doesn't always mean literally watching the ball as it leaves the hand, but you can wait to hear the bowler enter his follow through before setting off.

Likewise, every coach should ensure that all the bowlers and fielders keep one eye on the non striker leaving the crease, and to catch them wandering whenever they can.

That's actually why changing the wording of the law to allowing a mankad runout at any point until the 'ball leaves the bowler's hand' is troublesome. You'll then need to clarify that a bowler entering his follow through, but not having bowled the ball, cannot then run-out the non striker. It just creates a new grey area that will require further clarification. It won't actually make anything easier, it just shifts the grey area to a later part of the action.

 

[h_hurricane]

One of the reasons many batsmen fall short against mankading is because enough mankading is not done in the first place. More mankading please.. So that upcoming batsmen get trained at the grassroot levels how not to get mankaded..

 

[Burgey]

You probably also don't see replays of unsuccessful attempts.

 

[Daemon]

Ashwin tried it a couple of times after that Buttler incident. I think it was Dhawan who was still in the crease and was mocking him for it.

 

[Burgey]

Doesn’t sound like Dhawan to mock another player on the field.

However, the fact you haven’t mentioned other players doing it means YOU’RE A MASSIE HYPOCRITE!