Indian Cricket Dhaba

[Kraken]

stay in your ground if you don't like it. we don't want batsmen galloping halfway down the pitch before the bowler releases the ball free from potential consequence.

the rules are fair, and tilted in favour of the batsmen in etiquette. **** off im not giving a warning if it's the last ball of a world cup final.

fair enough! I just think there could be another way around it - run penalties against the batsmen for leaving the crease too early or something like that

 

[Prince EWS]

stay in your ground if you don't like it. we don't want batsmen galloping halfway down the pitch before the bowler releases the ball free from potential consequence.

the rules are fair, and tilted in favour of the batsmen in etiquette. **** off im not giving a warning if it's the last ball of a world cup final.

I hate seeing mankads in games but there does have to be some penalty for batsmen leaving their crease early.

I actually kind of feel the same about runouts though. I hate them (I realise others like seeing the good ground fielding and direct hits etc but it doesn't appeal to me) but they're an obviously necessary mechanism.

 

[Prince EWS]

fair enough! I just think there could be another way around it - run penalties against the batsmen for leaving the crease too early or something like that

Perhaps we could treat it like one short. Leave your crease so obviously early that the umpire notices and you don't get the run.

 

[harsh.ag]

"No-Bat" - The batting equivalent of a no-ball. You don't get the run (or even negative one run), plus the next delivery no matter what shot the batsman plays, no runs are given.

 

[Kraken]

Perhaps we could treat it like one short. Leave your crease so obviously early that the umpire notices and you don't get the run.

yeah great idea tbh. Oh man I’d love to see that implemented, especially in grade/parkies, the outrage would be immense

 

[Kraken]

"No-Bat" - The batting equivalent of a no-ball. You don't get the run (or even negative one run), plus the next delivery no matter what shot the batsman plays, no runs are given.

I would just block the next ball then lol. I guess the dot ball is then the penalty, especially if it happens in the death overs etc

 

[honestbharani]

if steve waugh was running about in a lesser team with less media presence supporting his legacy he'd be remembered for what he was, but he won. if you win you get to dictate.

That is not the point though. No one cares about how much you cheat, just don't preach to others that "cheating is bad" once you have retired. Professional sportsmen are always going to find a way to nudge any advantage they can to help themselves/their team win.

 

[honestbharani]

I would just block the next ball then lol. I guess the dot ball is then the penalty, especially if it happens in the death overs etc

I think what harsh means is that the next ball is something where you can be dismissed, but you cannot score a run. All to lose, nothing to gain for the batsman. Fair enough IMO.

 

[Kraken]

I think what harsh means is that the next ball is something where you can be dismissed, but you cannot score a run. All to lose, nothing to gain for the batsman. Fair enough IMO.

Yeah fair cop. That’s a decent idea, anything to kind of even it out really. I hate it when batsmen just leave the crease so early, pet hate

 

[indiaholic]

I just think Mankading is a perfectly acceptable solution. The only reason it seems outrageous is because bowlers don't do it enough. Once they get in the habit, the batsmen will adapt soon enough.

 

[ankitj]

Been discussed many times:

The Mankad

in cricket, we have a lot of pride in being the gentleman’s game, and one of the ways we show this is by frowning on people who mankad a batsman with no warning... we’re pretty much the only sport that frowns upon a completely legal and, in a by the book sort of reading, completely legitimate...

www.cricketweb.net

The mankad- what's the problem?

I for one have never been able to understand why mankadding someone is considered against the "spirit of the game". The batsman is out of his crease and is trying to gain an advantage. What's with the "gentlemanly" warning? Where did the whole thing come from historically? I mean, if a keeper...

www.cricketweb.net

Question on Shikhar Dhawan's 'Mankad'ing

I saw a lot of reports in newspapers and cricinfo saying it was possible that if Clarke appealed, he would've been given out under the revised laws of Mankading. But my doubt is since it was a clear case of the ball accidentally slipping from the bowler's arms during delivery stride, wouldn't...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[OverratedSanity]

The only problem with Mankads has always, and I do mean always, been umpires being cowards and not making the decision they're being paid to make. The majority of time a mankad happens, the umpire goes up to the fielding captain to and asks whether they want to take back the appeal. This is absolute nonsense and is exactly where all of the controversy usually stems from. Just make your decision you stupid ****. Send it up to the third umpire if need be and if he thinks its an illegitimate mankad according to the written rule, then he should give it not out. Shifting this responsibility to the fielding captain for some reason has always struck me as immensely yellow-bellied. If the captain does indeed think its against the spirit of the game for any reason, then he'll take back the appeal on his own, the umpire waddling up to the skipper to guilt trip the entire team is rubbish.

 

[harsh.ag]

Nah, the problem is that the punishment is disproportionate and that makes people feel uneasy, regardless of it being in the rules and everyone knew it etc etc

 

[OverratedSanity]

People are made to feel uneasy partly because of the implication from the umpires that its against the spirit of the game even in cases where it is a legitimate mankad. And I dont see the punishment being disproportionate, functionally its the same as a runout even though there are some technical differences.

But I maintain, if umpires took charge of these situations more often, it would be far less talked about.

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah, the problem is that the punishment is disproportionate and that makes people feel uneasy, regardless of it being in the rules and everyone knew it etc etc

I actually think @indiaholic is right in that the main problem is that it's barely used, and as such reeks as a kind of desperation when it is. West Indies using it in tight chases during the Under 19 World Cup really rubbed me the wrong way, because it's not like it was something they employed in other scenarios, and on at least one occassion was employed when the batsman wasn't even really backing up too far but had rather just started backing up assuming the bowler was going to actually bowl the thing.

Losing your wicket because you think there's a run on a fielder's arm when there's only 0.92 of a run is also disproportionate but no-one other than maybe me wants to change the penalty for that.

If bowlers were confident in doing it whenever batsmen starting leaving a bit early I think it'd be accepted a lot more, and as a result batsmen would just stop backing up before they saw the ball released (which is fine IMO). But as it is now, it tends to manifest itself in tight situations when the stakes get higher more than anything else, and that sucks.

 

[harsh.ag]

A run out is not the same thing because it's a fielder vs a batsman and it's a contest and skill and judgment are involved. It's what sport is all about.

Backing up too much should definitely be punished. But it's not in the same realm as a run out, sporting wise.

 

[Flem274*]

mankads in a modern context are absolutely not against the spirit of the game, especially in the modern era where batsmen are taught to back up before the bowler releases the ball.

in fact, i would argue going for a stroll down the pitch before the bowler releases the ball is a more egregious violation of the games spirit. in the gentlemen days it's my understanding that did not happen.

frowning on the mankad exists mostly to prevent jammy run outs where the bowler runs in with no intention of releasing the ball.

the non-striker is meant to start behind a certain line. if he leaves it before the bowler releases the ball, he's fair game. the pitch is 22 yards not 18. if the non-striker wants to take the risk, good for him, but no way should we abolish the mankad.

honestly the most unfair run outs are the deflections onto the stumps from a straight drive yet no one blinks an eye at those. if you're mankaded it's your own stupid fault.

 

[ankitj]

Why not use appropriate thread to discuss Mankad? Let me bump one of them for you all

 

[Prince EWS]

Why not use appropriate thread to discuss Mankad? Let me bump one of them for you all

ok thread nazi

 

[trundler]

Holding talking about the virtues of pitching it up gets on my nerves too