• 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

Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Tbh my stance on this has evolved; I don't have a problem with mankading now at all but I do have a massive, massive problem with balking. I can only imagine how aggravating it would be to watch in person, at the ground.

Run the **** out or don't, quit trying to psych out the non-striker ffs.
 
the big bambino

the big bambino

International Captain
Spark said:
Tbh my stance on this has evolved; I don't have a problem with mankading now at all but I do have a massive, massive problem with balking. I can only imagine how aggravating it would be to watch in person, at the ground.

Run the **** out or don't, quit trying to psych out the non-striker ffs.
Click to expand...
I reckon that’s a consequence of giving a bloke a warning. And it ends up looking like baulking because you have to run someone out before you commit to your action.

I think it would be better if you could mankad someone anytime before releasing the ball. In indoor you stand out of your crease as far as you can with the bat just behind it. Then watch the bowlers hand and never move until you see ball leave it.

Generally there wasn’t the stigma over mankad in indoor and it was a legit way of swiping 5 runs from an inattentive batsman.

The rule made the batsman pay attention and this seemed to legitimise the mankad as any other run out. Maybe an adoption of the old rule; the one I was used to in indoor, will keep non strikers on the alert and stay in their crease. This would remove most opportunities for mankad and when it did occur I think most people would blame the non striker for lacking skill rather than the bowler exercising their right to remove a batsman by whatever legal means available.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
I'm a fan of the Mankad, because I do think it rewards clever cricket + I feel it is possibly the most elegant solution to dissuade batters from leaving their crease early. Other ideas (such as short runs or penalty runs) are harder to enforce in lower levels of cricket where you do not have trained qualified umpires, let alone TV ones. I also think the current wording of the law is pretty elegant, and with the MCC clarification it is not that hard to enforce.

Having said that, the Laws of The Game are not some holy text that are never to be questioned or subject to revision. The Laws exist to serve the players of the game. They should be such that they make the game balanced, fun, and as easy as possible to enjoy as a player and spectator.

Clearly the Non-Striker's Runout law is controversial, and a lot of the cricketing public -including some very respected voices- are not a fan of the dynamics it brings to the game.

I think that, for all the bluster in this thread, everyone who is Pro-Mankad and jumping around shouting 'stay in your ****ing crease' should be open to the possibility that there might be a way to revise this law to make it better than what we currently have.

We should also be wary of refusing to accept that there is no other solution available. We all agree that there needs to be some Law in place to prevent batters from leaving their crease too early. The law we have right now is the best solution to date IMO, but that does not make it perfect, and does not mean that there is no better way out there to address this issue. We should be open to ideas and conversations on how to better address this issue, rather than digging our trenches and turning this into a Us vs Them culture war.
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
cnerd123 said:
I'm a fan of the Mankad, because I do think it rewards clever cricket + I feel it is possibly the most elegant solution to dissuade batters from leaving their crease early. Other ideas (such as short runs or penalty runs) are harder to enforce in lower levels of cricket where you do not have trained qualified umpires, let alone TV ones. I also think the current wording of the law is pretty elegant, and with the MCC clarification it is not that hard to enforce.

Having said that, the Laws of The Game are not some holy text that are never to be questioned or subject to revision. The Laws exist to serve the players of the game. They should be such that they make the game balanced, fun, and as easy as possible to enjoy as a player and spectator.

Clearly the Non-Striker's Runout law is controversial, and a lot of the cricketing public -including some very respected voices- are not a fan of the dynamics it brings to the game.

I think that, for all the bluster in this thread, everyone who is Pro-Mankad and jumping around shouting 'stay in your ****ing crease' should be open to the possibility that there might be a way to revise this law to make it better than what we currently have.

We should also be wary of refusing to accept that there is no other solution available. We all agree that there needs to be some Law in place to prevent batters from leaving their crease too early. The law we have right now is the best solution to date IMO, but that does not make it perfect, and does not mean that there is no better way out there to address this issue. We should be open to ideas and conversations on how to better address this issue, rather than digging our trenches and turning this into a Us vs Them culture war.
Click to expand...
Rare good post from cnerd

Don’t think the wording is particularly elegant though, else the clarification wouldn’t be needed
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
CricAddict said:
This is the best solution to Mankad. No warning or whatever. You run them out at non-striker's end. If the batter is out, he is out. If he is not, it is a no ball and a free hit is called.
Click to expand...
My issue is with “the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball”

No umpire can fairly adjudicate this in real time

Just change it to they can mankad whenever they please and remove the grey area
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top