The Mankad

[Shady Slim]

All I know is that non dismissal last night is the perfect comeback to anyone who tries to claim a run out at the bowlers end is as genuine as any other dismissal. Because I've never seen anyone call back a catch, stumping, bowled etc

that's sort of a circular argument is it not? the mankad isn't as genuine because call it back because it's not as genuine, no?

 

[Xix2565]

All I know is that non dismissal last night is the perfect comeback to anyone who tries to claim a run out at the bowlers end is as genuine as any other dismissal. Because I've never seen anyone call back a catch, stumping, bowled etc

If being an idiot is a perfect comeback then what is wrong with people nowadays?

 

[SteveNZ]

that's sort of a circular argument is it not? the mankad isn't as genuine because call it back because it's not as genuine, no?

You're gonna have to dumb this down for me...

No no I hear you, and im using it for my own means of the discussion. I guess what I'm confused about as well, was I heard a lot of Indian discourse about the Mankad after the England women's game, and how it was fair game. Then India is the orchestrator is this. I know, people are not homogenized in terms of the country they're from...but it's just so hard to get a read on.

Batsmen should only be called back when there's evidence they weren't out, or doubt...not on morality.

 

[Shady Slim]

You're gonna have to dumb this down for me...

No no I hear you, and im using it for my own means of the discussion. I guess what I'm confused about as well, was I heard a lot of Indian discourse about the Mankad after the England women's game, and how it was fair game. Then India is the orchestrator is this. I know, people are not homogenized in terms of the country they're from...but it's just so hard to get a read on.

Batsmen should only be called back when there's evidence they weren't out, or doubt...not on morality.

i think it's more that, the argument that most mankad proponents including myself put forward is that it's seen that there is this grey area around doing it (as evidence by the rohit thing), however that there shouldn't be

nobody is in the business of disputing that there is a stigma, it's just that it's stupid that there's a stigma and there shouldn't be.

 

[Burgey]

I thought the ICC comment on the Zampa one the other night was interesting in that it emphasised the aspect of the batsman being out of their ground when the ball would normally be delivered, which makes sense to me. I think if this aspect of it is more clearly explained then people will be happier with it.

I genuinely don’t care if a bloke is Mankaded if they’re wandering around as the ball is being bowled. Different to me if a bowler delays it beyond the point they roughly normally release the ball. If it gets beyond that you have bowlers balking batsmen to leave their crease at the non strikers which would be a bit of a junk development imo

 

[Line and Length]

@shortpitched713 said, "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 ...."

In my playing day I waited to see the bowler's front foot come down, at which stage it was fair to expect the ball to be delivered, before leaving the crease. Watching the ball leaving the bowler's hand puts the non-striker in a more uncomfortable position than watching the front foot. Bowlers that plant their front foot but fail to deliver the ball in an effort to get a run out are, as @Burgey describes, 'balking' and indulging in unsporting conduct IMO.

 

[SteveNZ]

i think it's more that, the argument that most mankad proponents including myself put forward is that it's seen that there is this grey area around doing it (as evidence by the rohit thing), however that there shouldn't be

nobody is in the business of disputing that there is a stigma, it's just that it's stupid that there's a stigma and there shouldn't be.

Yep, I'm with you. If it's in the laws, there shouldn't be a grey area. But Rohit last night continued to ensure there is.

It just seems bizarre to me. I can see the issue with a run out - let's say the Grant Elliott one at the Oval in I want to say 08. He should've been called back on reflection and Collingwood had the opportunity to. But this one, Shami knew what he was doing, it's in the rules, he's effected a dismissal. No way Sharma should be involved. The rule needs further work to get rid of that instance.

 

[Sunil1z]

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?

Rohit rightly called back Shanaka . Otherwise Shami would have the same reputation as Randiv who denied a batsman century deliberately.

 

[Coronis]

Rohit rightly called back Shanaka . Otherwise Shami would have the same reputation as Randiv who denied a batsman century deliberately.

Isn’t that what bowlers are supposed to do?

 

[Sunil1z]

Isn’t that what bowlers are supposed to do?

By bowling a huge no ball ?
India needed 1 run to win . Sehwag was on 94 . He hit a 6 next ball but bowler had bowled a huge no ball ( he admitted it afterwards) . So India had won the match and Sehwag remained on 94

 

[Shady Slim]

Yep, I'm with you. If it's in the laws, there shouldn't be a grey area. But Rohit last night continued to ensure there is.

It just seems bizarre to me. I can see the issue with a run out - let's say the Grant Elliott one at the Oval in I want to say 08. He should've been called back on reflection and Collingwood had the opportunity to. But this one, Shami knew what he was doing, it's in the rules, he's effected a dismissal. No way Sharma should be involved. The rule needs further work to get rid of that instance.

i think what’s happened with this thread is multiple streams of discussions have branched off which could have been what caused ur initially confusion (i agree with everything u said btw)

-first discussion was about the normative legitimacy of the mankad, ie whether or not it should be not a controversial thing (we agree it should not)

however

from there a couple of sub discussions have branched off which include
-why theres a perception that mankading is cheatsy rather than legitimate
-if cricketers from the subcontinent do it more than cricketers not from the subcontinent, why if so, and if so whether racism factors in to why it’s seen as generally unsportsmanlike
-if cricketers from the subcontinent don’t do it more often, why there’s a perception that they do
-whether or not the name “mankad” itself puts a stigma on either vinoo mankad or indians/ cricketers from the subcontinent generally

and it’s that last discussion, the one about naming conventions, where people have been saying “no that’s not stigma”

 

[srbhkshk]

Rohit rightly called back Shanaka . Otherwise Shami would have the same reputation as Randiv who denied a batsman century deliberately.

Nah, it's ****ing stupid, he has basically made the dismissal a non-option for the Indian team as long as he is the captain, would look like an absolute dumbass if he allows one to happen now.

 

[ankitj]

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.

ok

sorry, that's the tradition on the forum

 

[Spark]

By bowling a huge no ball ?
India needed 1 run to win . Sehwag was on 94 . He hit a 6 next ball but bowler had bowled a huge no ball ( he admitted it afterwards) . So India had won the match and Sehwag remained on 94

Andrew Tye did something extremely similar to James Vince a few years back in the BBL semi-final by bowling a massive wide, like two feet over his head, when Vince was on 98 and scores were level.

Very funny tstl. Booed by just about every single person in the ground, me included

 

[Sunil1z]

Nah, it's ****ing stupid, he has basically made the dismissal a non-option for the Indian team as long as he is the captain, would look like an absolute dumbass if he allows one to happen now.

No . If a batsman is repeatedly trying to take advantage, there is no harm in doing mankad there .

 

[srbhkshk]

No . If a batsman is repeatedly trying to take advantage, there is no harm in doing mankad there .

Yeah, that's the king of thinking that makes it controversial - no one gives you 2 chances before running you out, or 3 chances before taking your catch (Sarfaraz / other Pakistani keepers notwithstanding), if you treat it as something you shouldn't typically do then you have no right to do it at any stage really.
"Repeatedly doing it" is as subjective as it can be and can range from doing it twice in 100 balls to doing it 25 times in the last 5 overs, there's no definition that's going to work here.

 

[Shady Slim]

Yeah, that's the king of thinking that makes it controversial - no one gives you 2 chances before running you out, or 3 chances before taking your catch (Sarfaraz / other Pakistani keepers notwithstanding), if you treat it as something you shouldn't typically do then you have no right to do it at any stage really.
"Repeatedly doing it" is as subjective as it can be and can range from doing it twice in 100 balls to doing it 25 times in the last 5 overs, there's no definition that's going to work here.

nor should we have to find one
you’re out of the crease it’s simple as

 

[Xix2565]

I thought the ICC comment on the Zampa one the other night was interesting in that it emphasised the aspect of the batsman being out of their ground when the ball would normally be delivered, which makes sense to me. I think if this aspect of it is more clearly explained then people will be happier with it.

I genuinely don’t care if a bloke is Mankaded if they’re wandering around as the ball is being bowled. Different to me if a bowler delays it beyond the point they roughly normally release the ball. If it gets behind that you have bowlers balking batsmen to leave their crease at the non strikers which would be a bit of a junk development imo

Crazy thing is Shami did it perfectly, and Shanaka was so desperate that even while watching Shami run in he was still found outside the crease. Literally as good as an example as you can get and for some bullshit reason that idiots want to defend it's not counted (and no, I don't count "captains can withdraw any appeal anytime" as a valid reason in any competitive fixture).

No . If a batsman is repeatedly trying to take advantage, there is no harm in doing mankad there .

Shanaka was doing it multiple times before that ball, so is Shami somehow wrong for choosing that moment to run him out? Please actually think a bit about this.

 

[Sunil1z]

Crazy thing is Shami did it perfectly, and Shanaka was so desperate that even while watching Shami run in he was still found outside the crease. Literally as good as an example as you can get and for some bull**** reason that idiots want to defend it's not counted (and no, I don't count "captains can withdraw any appeal anytime" as a valid reason in any competitive fixture).

Shanaka was doing it multiple times before that ball, so is Shami somehow wrong for choosing that moment to run him out? Please actually think a bit about this.

If Shanaka was doing repeatedly then Rohit was wrong imo .

 

[Xix2565]

If Shanaka was doing repeatedly then Rohit was wrong imo .

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1612909221464383493

No red arrows sadly but Rohit's decision and later justification was pretty dumb overall.