The Mankad

[Shady Slim]

So you think but for young kids growing up, it may end up having that connection if you keep referring it this way.

yeah but that stigma comes from the fact that the media portrays it as a ~~dirty tactic done by the no good indians~~ rather than from the name itself, no?

 

[honestbharani]

yeah but that stigma comes from the fact that the media portrays it as a ~~dirty tactic done by the no good indians~~ rather than from the name itself, no?

Yes but do you think they will get a different answer when they discuss Mankads with their parents or elder relatives? Half the stigma goes once you stop referring to it as something very specific IMO. You don't call out the type of bowleds or stumpings, why bother here?

My support to not calling this a Mankad is based on these reasons, really.

a) This should not be called out seperately because that is what causes or keeps the stigma in the first place.
b) It is disrespectful to a legend of Indian cricket.
c) It has racist connotations even if the folks using it themselves do not use it with racist ideas.

 

[Burgey]

You can throw around as many racist tropes and bigoted insults as you want and call them "bait". That doesn't mean they are not.

As I said, you repeatedly referring to things as “racist tropes” doesn’t make them racist tropes. I don’t insult you out of bigotry ffs. Has nothing to do with where you’re from. I insult you because I think you’re an odious dickhead.

 

[honestbharani]

As I said, you repeatedly referring to things as “racist tropes” doesn’t make them racist tropes. I don’t insult you out of bigotry ffs. Has nothing to do with where you’re from. I insult you because I think you’re an odious dickhead.

I never referred to your insecure jabs at me except the ones you posted today, tbh. As hard as it is to sort through your drivel, you throw around enough in your posts here to justify what I said times a million.

 

[Coronis]

Stop taking offence on behalf of others ffs.

But then what would people do on the internet??

 

[Daemon]

I understand the frustration about people going oh it’s only those cheating Indians who do it. That definitely exists to some degree.

But say everyone agrees to call it a non striker runout or whatever.

That doesn’t really change the fact that most people doing it today are likely to still be disproportionately Indian because there’s more public support for the act there than in many other parts of the world like Australia.

The stigma will thus stay until the boomer mentality slowly fades and the rest of the cricketing world catches up.

I struggle to believe the name itself has anything to do with racism, or that delinking the name from the act will serve any purpose besides giving the pc gone mad crowd some ammo.

 

[shortpitched713]

Honestly, any of this unwritten rules **** always grinded my gears when it came to International cricket, or any other sport for that matter. I'm sorry, but regardless of similarities, there are huge cultural gaps between the Subcontinent, England, Carribean, etc, etc. and in such a multicultural environment the onus is on the rules makers to be as explicit as possible in what is and is not allowed, not leave it up to players themselves to sort out via "understanding" or "unwritten rules" how to govern the game.

I'm also consider myself somewhere on the ASD spectrum, so that may play into that, but lol you wouldn't want me captaining an international side, especially of Pakistan or a subcontinental team. I would have had my non strikers camp out at the middle of the wicket when batting if there was ever a contentious Mankading incident from my side when fielding, then dared my opponents to do the same, and been ready for a row about it too. And in my mind, it would 100% be on the administrators and rulemakers of the game that such an incident occurred and I would have no guilt.

 

[Prince EWS]

You don't call out the type of bowleds or stumpings, why bother here?

You kind of do, though. If someone gets a massive inside edge trying to drive one through the covers and chops on, when someone asks you how they got out you're much likely to say "oh he chopped on" than "bowled leg". The scorecard says bowled, just like how the scorecard says run out when there's a mankad, but the terminology to describe something a bit out of the ordinary is fine IMO.

Comparing it to 'chinaman' is silly. It doesn't become racist just because Mankad himself wasn't white.

 

[shortpitched713]

Bring back Bosanqueting, for mine, to highlight the devious trickery and unsporting nature of the English.

 

[Anil]

Good god, this still going on?

 

[honestbharani]

You kind of do, though. If someone gets a massive inside edge trying to drive one through the covers and chops on, when someone asks you how they got out you're much likely to say "oh he chopped on" than "bowled leg". The scorecard says bowled, just like how the scorecard says run out when there's a mankad, but the terminology to describe something a bit out of the ordinary is fine IMO.

Comparing it to 'chinaman' is silly. It doesn't become racist just because Mankad himself wasn't white.

The key phrase being "when someone asks" and surely saying "run out backing up" is no more difficult than saying "bowled off the inside edge". My point is very simple. The term doesn't need to exist coz it has had this stigma attached to it over so many years now. There is no magic fix here but that doesn't mean we have to sit on our asses doing nothing either.

I see absolutely no reason to not remove the term, put it that way. It is not gonna have a single negative effect and it is possible that it can have a net positive effect, the degree of which may differ based on your perception.

 

[ankitj]

But then what would people do on the internet??

You can always empathize with and vocally support someone who in actuality takes offence.

 

[Sunil1z]

@Burgey
What is your take on his statement? Is Mankad extremely less popular in Australia?

 

[Spark]

@Burgey
What is your take on his statement? Is Mankad extremely less popular in Australia?

I would say that the core cricket community is pretty split on the issue, there's definitely plenty in favour (especially amongst the current day players compared to previous) but the casual fanbase is pretty overwhelmingly opposed.

If "removing the stigma" is the justification for changing the name then that will go down like a lead balloon amongst them, who believe firmly that the stigma is good and proper.

 

[Shady Slim]

I would say that the core cricket community is pretty split on the issue, there's definitely plenty in favour (especially amongst the current day players compared to previous) but the casual fanbase is pretty overwhelmingly opposed.

huge part of this is most commentators still **** on about the whole "you need to do a warning first, and even then it's kinda dirty" bit which is what's absorbed by the casuals

 

[Burgey]

@Burgey
What is your take on his statement? Is Mankad extremely less popular in Australia?

I still don’t think it’s very popular here but I think people will come around to it just being another dismissal

Personally I would give someone a warning but if others choose not too I kinda don’t care. A lot in the batsmen’s favour these days

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Yeah the only way perceptions will change here in Australia is with time

The debate about it being referred to as a Mankad really is missing the wood for the trees

 

[Red]

Pretty funny this. Last week I got attacked by a few people when I asked how a “mankad” is recorded in a scorebook (which I should’ve just easily looked up myself).

Interestingly, I’ve always supported the “mankad” as a legit dismissal. I have no issue with it, there’s a line there, be in it at the right time and you won’t get mankadded (or run out, whatever).

My question is, if I support a bowler’s right to effect a dismissal that has some stigma around it for some people, and has been named after a guy with darker skin who did it once, does that mean i’m a racist or an ally to good intercultural relations?

The modern world can be a confusing place ?‍

 

[Xix2565]

Think supporting the act is fine, just that Mankad as a term is charged (unfairly) in this context.

 

[honestbharani]

If "removing the stigma" is the justification for changing the name then that will go down like a lead balloon amongst them, who believe firmly that the stigma is good and proper.

They are not the only ones out there causing a ruckus everytime this happens though, and that is the point you guys miss.