The Mankad

[Coronis]

All this time we’ve been worried about batsmen protecting their averages, we should’ve been worried about bowlers protecting theirs!

 

[GIMH]

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.

Unwritten rules in sport are generally best avoided. You mention football but it’s taken some steps in recent years to write the unwritten eg the ref now having the power to instruct that a drop ball is not contested. As prizes and stakes become bigger, grey areas become more dangerous and likely to be exploited.

 

[Xix2565]

Why was my solution using the 3rd umpire inadequate

Doesn't work for all levels of the game.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea laws of cricket need to work from random U11 village games all the way to the professional level.

The current wording of the law is not that hard for an onfield umpire to enforce honestly. As soon as you feel the ball should be delivered, the run out window is over. Before that moment you're looking at the popping crease for the front foot no-ball anyways, so not a large adjustment to keep an eye on the non striker's movement as well.

 

[Ashes81]

Doesn't work for all levels of the game.

Fair point but we don't have DRS at all levels of the game, it's not used in all 1st class cricket

 

[Burgey]

Agree though I'm surprised you don't think it is fair game when the batsman is Ian Bell

Seems to me you’d pity Bell and let him have his moment

 

[Ashes81]

Seems to me you’d pity Bell and let him have his moment

You Aussies are all heart - I didn't realise.

In 2013, you kindly let Bell score 3 centuries as we beat you 3 nil

 

[honestbharani]

Descending to feigning ignorance to avoid the point is pitiful from you.

Nah... when it comes to dealing with folks making bigoted posts like you, ignorance is indeed bliss.

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.

Bodyline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

L&L, I am well aware of Bodyline and the history. My point is it was not the name of an individual and his family that was being associated there.

 

[Xix2565]

Fair point but we don't have DRS at all levels of the game, it's not used in all 1st class cricket

Well the DRS isn't on the same level as this though.

 

[the big bambino]

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.

Bodyline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course he knows about the stigma associated with it but avoids it because he's a hypocrite.

 

[shortpitched713]

@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.

I think this is covered in the current rule, right? I.e. once your bowling arm passes the vertical, you can't run the non striker out.

 

[Burgey]

You Aussies are all heart - I didn't realise.

In 2013, you kindly let Bell score 3 centuries as we beat you 3 nil

You know what he averaged vs Australia?

35.

T H I R T Y F I V E
H
I
R
T
Y
F
I
V
E

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

When does the third umpire deduct these runs? At the moment of infraction, or at the end of the innings? If the latter, it's totally untenable for a run chase, and the former will bring stoppages to the game, from an unsolicited call coming from the third umpire. And as that person making the call is human, they may feel some pressure not to make the call on key situations late in games, precisely the time it's needed most.

It will change when player's start unabashedly using the rule according to letter of law. The recent call back is just a blip, trust me. Before the time of replay, we couldn't have imagined that a player would smash a ball for a caught behind appeal and and then just stand their ground to watch that on the replay monitor. Now, it happens all the time. The game changes.

 

[CricAddict]

You know what he averaged vs Australia?

35.

T H I R T Y F I V E
H
I
R
T
Y
F
I
V
E

One of Warne's bunnies, isn't it?

 

[Ashes81]

When does the third umpire deduct these runs? At the moment of infraction, or at the end of the innings? If the latter, it's totally untenable for a run chase, and the former will bring stoppages to the game, from an unsolicited call coming from the third umpire. And as that person making the call is human, they may feel some pressure not to make the call on key situations late in games, precisely the time it's needed most.

It will change when player's start unabashedly using the rule according to letter of law. The recent call back is just a blip, trust me. Before the time of replay, we couldn't have imagined that a player would smash a ball for a caught behind appeal and and then just stand their ground to watch that on the replay monitor. Now, it happens all the time. The game changes.

It would be checked at the same time as the 3rd umpire checks for a no ball

 

[SteveNZ]

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

Yeah, Brendon McCullum later admitted the Murali one was callous. The Bell one was slightly more blame on his behalf, but the right decision was made.

 

[SteveNZ]

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”

Absolutely we agree. It's in the rules, like any other dismissal. And not only that, Shami proactively went after that dismissal - he had no intention of ever bowling that ball. When fast bowlers effect a Mankad, you can be sure they've done it pre-emptively. You can't run in like that, be looking at your spot, yet pick up the non-striker in your periphery unless he's half way down already. Spinners, I get it, but not Shami. And how you can pre-emptively seek a wicket, get it, then have it ruled out on 'spirit' is just insane. Sorta like bouncing someone out with two men back, then going 'eehhh...didn't seem fair. Have another go, Chris Martin'.

- Why is there a perception it's cheatsy? I honestly don't know the history. Seems ironic given the batsmen are trying to gain an advantage, but it seems like it will need a lot of time to change the rhetoric on it being the bowler's evil, not the batsmen's.
- An Indian poster did a really good job of talking me through 'Mankads' and how they are endemic in local cricket in that country, and there was no issue with spirit - it was either you stay behind the crease, or you're prone to being run out. And I was fully on board with that after the India v England women's game. But now (granted it's one instance) I'm less sure. And I don't think racism has anything to do with it, it's just different customs for different countries. England plays the game one way, as do Australians, as do we, etc.
- Agreed that Mankad puts a stigma on it being an Indian thing, and I try not to use that term. It's not an official term and I do think it suggests Indians are the great proponents.

 

[Anil]

- An Indian poster did a really good job of talking me through 'Mankads' and how they are endemic in local cricket in that country, and there was no issue with spirit - it was either you stay behind the crease, or you're prone to being run out. And I was fully on board with that after the India v England women's game. But now (granted it's one instance) I'm less sure. And I don't think racism has anything to do with it, it's just different customs for different countries. England plays the game one way, as do Australians, as do we, etc.

what does different customs mean here? how is this even a custom? everyone plays the same game, we are all obligated to follow the same rules.

"spirit of the game" has become such a vague, lazy phrase thrown around haphazardly, conveniently, quite often in a condescending manner...this is virtue signalling without even explaining what the virtue is here...i don't think we do this with any other rule in cricket.

if the rule itself is so awful, offensive (and with a much better explanation of why it is right to let batsmen get away with backing up as they please), then icc and individual governing bodies need to work on either modifying it to a point where it is acceptable to everyone or remove it altogether.

 

[SteveNZ]

what does different customs mean here? how is this even a custom? everyone plays the same game, we are all obligated to follow the same rules.

"spirit of the game" has become such a vague, lazy phrase thrown around haphazardly, conveniently, quite often in a condescending manner...this is virtue signalling without even explaining what the virtue is here...i don't think we do this with any other rule in cricket.

if the rule itself is so awful, offensive (and with a much better explanation of why it is right to let batsmen get away with backing up as they please), then icc and individual governing bodies need to work on either modifying it to a point where it is acceptable to everyone or remove it altogether.

Customs:
1.
a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time.

It's the same game but everyone plays it differently. Indians are often raised on street cricket, English are raised on village greens with different nuances about the way it's played. In India, as a learned poster told me, being run out at the non-striker is par for the course. In England, you'd be asked to leave the Common.

Fair point on spirit of the game, which is what myself and many others want eliminated with a stronger rule.

 

[Ashes81]

what does different customs mean here? how is this even a custom? everyone plays the same game, we are all obligated to follow the same rules.

"spirit of the game" has become such a vague, lazy phrase thrown around haphazardly, conveniently, quite often in a condescending manner...this is virtue signalling without even explaining what the virtue is here...i don't think we do this with any other rule in cricket.

if the rule itself is so awful, offensive (and with a much better explanation of why it is right to let batsmen get away with backing up as they please), then icc and individual governing bodies need to work on either modifying it to a point where it is acceptable to everyone or remove it altogether.

There are other rules that aren't always adhered to as they're seen as unsporting.

For example when a throw for a run out hits a batter, teams usually don't run for the overthrows.

Imagine if in the Eng v NZ WC final when the ball hit Stoke's bat and went for 4 overthrows, if the ball had stopped before the boundary and England had run for 3 overthrows. It would have been perfectly legal but they're would have been uproar.

When there's an accidental collision between a batter going for a run and a bowler trying to field the ball, most teams wouldn't run the batter out.

England did this against NZ a few years back in an ODI and we claimed the run out and it turned the match. The umpire even asked Colly, who was captain if he wanted to withdraw the appeal and he said no.

It was within the laws of the game but not the spirit and we quite rightly took alot of stick.

For some players and many fans the Mankad falls into the same category.