• 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

Victor Ian

International Coach
If I was Shanaka I'd have appealed for myself once it was called back. I'm having no charity hundreds on my card (...if I was Shanaka, because obviously I'M not having anything on my card full stop).

The call back decision was such a brainfade. Either Rohit is a ****, because he was playing mind games with Shanaka and his legacy, or he is an ignoramus.

I mean, what's next? Why not start bowling pies to let everyone get a hundred in game-over situations. How about Cummins getting Kohli back into form with a 3 over 108 if the game result is a foregone conclusion.
 

ataraxia

International Coach
tbh that field setting to a bat as bunny as Rajitha might be the best idea in this situation, if the result was still undecided
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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
AJ Tye did that to James Vince in the BBL last year.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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
Keiron Pollard as well when Even Lewis was near a century in a CPL match.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
happy with the last word, batman?

The context was you and burgey saying his family was ok with it which they obviously were not.
Did I? Others were saying his family was ok with it. You then found a Mankad so you could insist on the term's association with racism. But that wasn't the son's objection at all so you are still on your own. I don't place much store in what the family says. They're divided like the rest of us. There was a consequence to Vinoo's action and that was to give his name to it. People are allowed to react to incidents despite you, or his family's objections.

The Mankad is seen as sneaky and the objection is based on a person's character, not race. You can avoid all the crit by warning someone. Then you'll be praised for sportsmanship. Either way the term is justified and a part of cricket's language to describe a run out controversially effected.

Just like you would use bodyline instead of leg theory or leg side attack, right? Bodyline has been used to vilify English people. Would you like to brownsplain to them why they are over reacting? Or appropriating a cricketing term not involving your country?

Of course not. You're a cricket lover and use the term in right context. What dick heads like Greenberg don't get is that they are just passing through and have no authority to change cricket's language according to their ego. All his suggestion would do is stigmatise cricket fans and weaponise actual racists because he has encouraged them by loading the term.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
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.
Nah Shami was smiling sheepishly even as he was doing it. Think he thought he was having a bit of fun. Its acts like this that causes the backlash when someone does it seriously. :(

My problem here is if you didn't wanna deny Shanaka a 100 by running him out, then don't ****ing do it. Doing it and then taking it back and acting as if it was not the right thing to do is basically Shami and Rohit throwing Ashwin and everyone who wants this to be a normal part of the game under the bus.
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Just like you would use bodyline instead of leg theory or leg side attack, right? Bodyline has been used to vilify English people. Would you like to brownsplain to them why they are over reacting? Or appropriating a cricketing term not involving your country?
Who is this Bodyline and is he/she a legend of the game? The fact that I have to explain something as basic as this difference, alongside the fact that you refused to actually discuss any of the real points that I brought up and instead posted the junk you posted in this post, tells me you have no intention of indulging in a good-faith argument here.

And yes, it is funny I have to brownsplain something this basic to you.
 
Last edited:

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
If I was Shanaka I'd have appealed for myself once it was called back. I'm having no charity hundreds on my card (...if I was Shanaka, because obviously I'M not having anything on my card full stop).

The call back decision was such a brainfade. Either Rohit is a ****, because he was playing mind games with Shanaka and his legacy, or he is an ignoramus.

I mean, what's next? Why not start bowling pies to let everyone get a hundred in game-over situations. How about Cummins getting Kohli back into form with a 3 over 108 if the game result is a foregone conclusion.
Exactly my feelings and you have put it in words. I too would have just walked away in this scenario as a batsman.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Who is this Bodyline and is he/she a legend of the game? The fact that I have to explain something as basic as this difference, alongside the fact that you refused to actually discuss any of the real points that I brought up and instead posted the junk you posted in this post, tells me you have no intention of indulging in a good-faith argument here.

And yes, it is funny I have to brownsplain something this basic to you.
Descending to feigning ignorance to avoid the point is pitiful from you.
 

cnerd123

likes this
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
Didn't Dhoni call back Bell after he was fairly runout when he went to fist bump his teammate or something?
 

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Who is this Bodyline and is he/she a legend of the game? The fact that I have to explain something as basic as this difference, alongside the fact that you refused to actually discuss any of the real points that I brought up and instead posted the junk you posted in this post, tells me you have no intention of indulging in a good-faith argument here.

And yes, it is funny I have to brownsplain something this basic to you.
You know very well the stigma attached to Bodyline and how Jardine and Larwood bore the blame for a tactic that had been used by others. Originally called 'leg theory' it was used prior to the infamous 1932 Ashes series.

Some fast bowlers experimented with leg theory prior to 1932, sometimes accompanying the tactic with short-pitched bowling. In 1925, Australian Jack Scott first bowled a form of what would later have been called bodyline in a state match for New South Wales; his captain Herbie Collins disliked it and would not let him use it again. Other Australian captains were less particular, including Vic Richardson, who asked the South Australian bowler Lance Gun to use it in 1925, and later let Scott use it when he moved to South Australia. Scott repeated the tactics against the MCC in 1928–29. In 1927, in a Test trial match, "Nobby" Clark bowled short to a leg-trap (a cluster of fielders placed close on the leg side). He was representing England in a side captained by Douglas Jardine. In 1928–29, Harry Alexander bowled fast leg theory at an England team, and Harold Larwood briefly used a similar tactic on that same tour in two Test matches. Freddie Calthorpe, the England captain, criticised Learie Constantine's use of short-pitched bowling to a leg side field in a Test match in 1930; one such ball struck Andy Sandham, but Constantine only reverted to more conventional tactics after a complaint from the England team.

 

Victor Ian

International Coach
Dhoni gets the spirit of cricket. He calls back a play of bad sportsmanship because the batsman was not trying to sneak un unfair advantage. It is like calling back a run out when the batsman has collided with someone mid run.
The Rohit call back is different. It is not sportsmanship. It is actually rewarding cheating rather than misfortune.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Didn't Dhoni call back Bell after he was fairly runout when he went to fist bump his teammate or something?
As I remember it, the England bats thought it was tea and wandered off. The ball hadn't been called dead so India effected a run out. I don't think we had a consensus on here as to whether it was right to withdraw or not.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
As I remember it, the England bats thought it was tea and wandered off. The ball hadn't been called dead so India effected a run out. I don't think we had a consensus on here as to whether it was right to withdraw or not.
Similar sort of vein to the Murali run out when he left his crease to congratulate his partner on a hundred

Both acts of bastardry tbh
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Similar sort of vein to the Murali run out when he left his crease to congratulate his partner on a hundred

Both acts of bastardry tbh
Agree though I'm surprised you don't think it is fair game when the batsman is Ian Bell
 

Ashes81

State Vice-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.
Why was my solution using the 3rd umpire inadequate - you may disagree with it which is fair enough but it would solve the issue.

Despite the change to the law, there is still a grey area as recent events have shown as different players have different views of what's acceptable and what's not and that won't change.
 

Top