Sunil1z
International Regular
Behaviour of many former cricketers is also highly deplorable.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The Mankad
- Thread starter Shady Slim
- Start date
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Hence my point that don't call it anything at all. It's just a run-out.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I don't think I intended to post anything aggressive at you, mate but I realize those posts may have come across that way, re-reading them now. I am just annoyed at how this issue is being dealt with esp. since the Deepti incident and maybe I took out my frustrations from other social media on you needlessly here. My apologies. Even though we don't agree on some cricketing stuff, I do consider you a good and fair poster and I honestly did not intend to make you feel bad or post any aggro towards you. Sorry again.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 ?
Victor Ian
International Coach
Before we consider renaming mankadding, I think you first need to rename backing up. How is going forward, backing up?
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah can't say I have ever particularly understood that one myself?
_00_deathscar
International Regular
Quantum physics
Victor Ian
International Coach
Withdrawing the appeal is what's wrong with mankads. Rohit should be investigated for spot fixing.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Its unfair. All it takes is a vadapav.
thierry henry
International Coach
Also why do we name covering for an errant throw and getting a head start as a non-striker the same thing when they are completely unrelated?
This is far too confusing.
We heard a lot of sub-continent posters saying running people out at the non-strikers is just par for the course, and I fully accepted and embraced their conditioning to it was different. But now someone does it, it's given out and it's retracted. Zampa does it, it gets ruled out on a technicality, he says he was right to do it, but his coach says he didn't like it.
So where are we at? Do we only do it when the game is tight? If someone is on 98 and the game is won, is it now sportsmanship and bum chummery to not have him dismissed? Can we apply the same rule to a stumping, given both are apparently bonafide dismissals?
As generations below come through and the institution of 'spirit of the game' becomes less (and it will/is), we're going to get even murkier on this dismissal. It needs proper sorting.
I'm at the point now where just get the ****ers behind the line, as per a stumping. If they have left the crease before the bowler has delivered it, it's a dot ball or some such...I dunno. But get rid of the grey area.
We heard a lot of sub-continent posters saying running people out at the non-strikers is just par for the course, and I fully accepted and embraced their conditioning to it was different. But now someone does it, it's given out and it's retracted. Zampa does it, it gets ruled out on a technicality, he says he was right to do it, but his coach says he didn't like it.
So where are we at? Do we only do it when the game is tight? If someone is on 98 and the game is won, is it now sportsmanship and bum chummery to not have him dismissed? Can we apply the same rule to a stumping, given both are apparently bonafide dismissals?
As generations below come through and the institution of 'spirit of the game' becomes less (and it will/is), we're going to get even murkier on this dismissal. It needs proper sorting.
I'm at the point now where just get the ****ers behind the line, as per a stumping. If they have left the crease before the bowler has delivered it, it's a dot ball or some such...I dunno. But get rid of the grey area.
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Coward
All sports have unwritten rules of what's generally acceptable and what isn't and cricket is the same.
Some things which are legal are often considered bad sportsmanship, such as the Mankad, running a player out after an accidental collision or running for overthrows after a throw at the stumps hits a batsmen.
It's generally considered OK to not walk when you've hit it. It's OK to appeal for things that you know are not out and put a certain amount of pressure on the umpire by over exaggerated appealing.
It's generally not considered to be ok to claim catches that have hit the ground or to alter the state of the ball with a bottle top, sandpaper or excessive picking of the seam.
But the Mankad is a grey area. Most players don't do it, certainly not without a warning but some players see nothing wrong with it and it's a perfectly legal thing to do.
Whether it's legal or not, it's controversial - it shouldn't be but it is. I think the easiest way to sort the issue is for the 3rd umpire to decide if there's been an infringement by the non striker and if there is a run is deducted from the extras total - batsmen would soon stop doing it.
Some things which are legal are often considered bad sportsmanship, such as the Mankad, running a player out after an accidental collision or running for overthrows after a throw at the stumps hits a batsmen.
It's generally considered OK to not walk when you've hit it. It's OK to appeal for things that you know are not out and put a certain amount of pressure on the umpire by over exaggerated appealing.
It's generally not considered to be ok to claim catches that have hit the ground or to alter the state of the ball with a bottle top, sandpaper or excessive picking of the seam.
But the Mankad is a grey area. Most players don't do it, certainly not without a warning but some players see nothing wrong with it and it's a perfectly legal thing to do.
Whether it's legal or not, it's controversial - it shouldn't be but it is. I think the easiest way to sort the issue is for the 3rd umpire to decide if there's been an infringement by the non striker and if there is a run is deducted from the extras total - batsmen would soon stop doing it.
shortpitched713
International Captain
Unwritten rules are literally the worst way to govern materially relevant aspects of a game. And yes, running sharp singles between the wickets is materially relevant, especially in the limited overs format.
The solution you've offered, of having the third umpire decide non-striker run infringements and penalizing runs, is also inadequate. All of these solutions, are putting the onus on everyone involved to be complicit in creating a subjective gray area of "acceptable backing up" that is preserved through very soft ( warnings, run penalty, or even ignoring it cuz we're a good sport innit ) means, instead of the perceived draconic consequence of a run out at the non-striker end.
Why does a certain subset of the cricketing word culture want to bend over backward to promote this environment in which this gray area can be perpetuated? Is it because western cricket cultures are permeated with and promote microaggressions, pushing the envelope, and just a general underhandedness to win at all cost? Actually the reason doesn't ****ing matter. But it should be obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together, that the play environment in which the non strike batsman waits to see daylight between the bowlers hand and the ball before leaving his crease out of a back of the mind knowledge he can and will be run out vs the one in which there's doubt as to who can get away with exactly how much will have a huge difference between the two in the number of pointless arguments, tears and handbags.
There should be no reason to bring umpire subjectivity, or even an unwritten rule into play to legislate an aspect of the game that can be very easily settled through a black and white, letter of the law (which thankfully has been updated to make very clear that running out the non striker is letter of the law).
If you want to watch a sport where you can always find some complaint about how umpires are interpreting any number of inherently subjective rules, then you're spoiled for choice between football, basketball, rugby, etc. Go watch one of those, while the rest of us move forward with a fair, explicit, and practical rule set for cricket.
The solution you've offered, of having the third umpire decide non-striker run infringements and penalizing runs, is also inadequate. All of these solutions, are putting the onus on everyone involved to be complicit in creating a subjective gray area of "acceptable backing up" that is preserved through very soft ( warnings, run penalty, or even ignoring it cuz we're a good sport innit ) means, instead of the perceived draconic consequence of a run out at the non-striker end.
Why does a certain subset of the cricketing word culture want to bend over backward to promote this environment in which this gray area can be perpetuated? Is it because western cricket cultures are permeated with and promote microaggressions, pushing the envelope, and just a general underhandedness to win at all cost? Actually the reason doesn't ****ing matter. But it should be obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together, that the play environment in which the non strike batsman waits to see daylight between the bowlers hand and the ball before leaving his crease out of a back of the mind knowledge he can and will be run out vs the one in which there's doubt as to who can get away with exactly how much will have a huge difference between the two in the number of pointless arguments, tears and handbags.
There should be no reason to bring umpire subjectivity, or even an unwritten rule into play to legislate an aspect of the game that can be very easily settled through a black and white, letter of the law (which thankfully has been updated to make very clear that running out the non striker is letter of the law).
If you want to watch a sport where you can always find some complaint about how umpires are interpreting any number of inherently subjective rules, then you're spoiled for choice between football, basketball, rugby, etc. Go watch one of those, while the rest of us move forward with a fair, explicit, and practical rule set for cricket.
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
Yes, you are correct.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Rohit is an idiot, it is a simple explanation. Shami is also an idiot coz if you had no intention to get him out, why do it in the first place?
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
I think Shami intended but Robit thought otherwise. Being captain, he should have his intentions on such scenarios to his team mates much in advance. Looked like he sold Shami there.