The Mankad

[honestbharani]

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.

Why do you think they dont? In this very thread there have been discussions on this topic where very pro-Mankad posters were engaging and debating in the right spirit.

Your spiel would be more meaningful if directed at the idiots who think it is some form of cheating and not the right way to get a batsman out.

 

[honestbharani]

No umpire can fairly adjudicate this in real time

No umpire can fairly adjudicate a LBW either. Its pure guess work.

I do agree that if they change the law to till the ball has left the bowlers hands, it would make it so much easier and simpler to enforce.

 

[shortpitched713]

I actually really like the current wording of the law, and don't think it's nearly as subjective as you guys think, if the umpire is aware of what he's looking for.

During your delivery stride, the bowling hand will either come up for a delivery, or come down for a run out attempt. If it comes up, and then comes down during the delivery stride without the ball being bowled, it's a balk and a no ball. Not exactly rocket science, and prevents the bowler from trying to disguise all of this at the very last split second.

 

[ankitj]

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.

OK

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm a fan of the Mankad, because I do think it rewards clever cricket

Genuine question - how so?

 

[cnerd123]

Genuine question - how so?

You have to be alert to the non striker leaving their crease early and have to execute the run-out correctly to get the wicket. It shows good awareness and presence of mind to pull it off under the pressure of the game

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Eh, I think what probably happens is that someone notices the non striker continuously leaving the crease early, then it's simply a matter of deciding when you want to do it. Don't think the bowler has to exert that much brain power.

 

[CricAddict]

You have to be alert to the non striker leaving their crease early and have to execute the run-out correctly to get the wicket. It shows good awareness and presence of mind to pull it off under the pressure of the game

Yes. Which is why I advocate a no-ball and a free hit for a failed attempt. That will ensure that the bowler doesn't do it for the sake for it and the mankads are genuine attempts where the non-striker is quite far from the crease.

 

[SteveNZ]

You have to be alert to the non striker leaving their crease early and have to execute the run-out correctly to get the wicket. It shows good awareness and presence of mind to pull it off under the pressure of the game

As a bowling coach, I wouldn't be encouraging my pace bowlers to have any level of interest in what the non-striker was doing. My mid-off/on could be relaying information and warning the non-striker, but I want my bowler to be solely focused on the next ball he's going to bowl and where that target is.

That's what makes this runout extra nuanced and messy, too. Fast bowlers should never effect Mankads.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You have to be alert to the non striker leaving their crease early and have to execute the run-out correctly to get the wicket. It shows good awareness and presence of mind to pull it off under the pressure of the game

This is not really the case. The non-striker would have to be stealing a massive amount of ground for the bowler to notice it during a delivery.

RTB is right, it's the kind of thing that a bowler will try because a batsman has been doing it consistently

 

[cnerd123]

Eh, I think what probably happens is that someone notices the non striker continuously leaving the crease early, then it's simply a matter of deciding when you want to do it. Don't think the bowler has to exert that much brain power.

this is true for a lot of cricket dismissals tho isn't it? Coaches/Captains/other players notice the batter has a particular bad habit or weakness, tells the bowler to just run in and hit a spot, and all they do is follow it.

Running out a non-striker is clever from a team perspective. Sometimes it is the bowler who notices it, but sometimes it might be the mid off fielder who spots it and then let's the bowler know what to do

Yes. Which is why I advocate a no-ball and a free hit for a failed attempt. That will ensure that the bowler doesn't do it for the sake for it and the mankads are genuine attempts where the non-striker is quite far from the crease.

The problem with this is that a no-ball is supposed to be a ball that has been bowled. It is a ball the batter has received and can score off. So I'm not sure how you can call this a no-ball when it hasn't been bowled and the batter hasn't actually had the chance to play at it. Kinda messes up scoring and stats and stuff.

Maybe there are penalty runs applied to a failed attempt, but what would the grounds for that be? Time wasting? Because there is already a law that covers that. So if a fielding side wastes time on failed Mankad's, just ding them on that. Why add in more complexity?

 

[CricAddict]

this is true for a lot of cricket dismissals tho isn't it? Coaches/Captains/other players notice the batter has a particular bad habit or weakness, tells the bowler to just run in and hit a spot, and all they do is follow it.

Running out a non-striker is clever from a team perspective. Sometimes it is the bowler who notices it, but sometimes it might be the mid off fielder who spots it and then let's the bowler know what to do


The problem with this is that a no-ball is supposed to be a ball that has been bowled. It is a ball the batter has received and can score off. So I'm not sure how you can call this a no-ball when it hasn't been bowled and the batter hasn't actually had the chance to play at it. Kinda messes up scoring and stats and stuff.

Maybe there are penalty runs applied to a failed attempt, but what would the grounds for that be? Time wasting? Because there is already a law that covers that. So if a fielding side wastes time on failed Mankad's, just ding them on that. Why add in more complexity?

We are anyways talking about changing a rule, so just say that no-ball is not always supposed to be a ball that has to be bowled. The issues with dinging is it will be subjective and can raise controversies while what I am proposing is an objective way to cut out frequent mankads.

 

[cnerd123]

is frequent failed Mankad's a problem tho? I've never seen it. It's more common to see a bowler pull out of their runup and and warn the batter than it is to see a failed attempt. Zampa's was probably the first and he just executed it poorly, the batter was still out if he did it correctly.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

this is true for a lot of cricket dismissals tho isn't it? Coaches/Captains/other players notice the batter has a particular bad habit or weakness, tells the bowler to just run in and hit a spot, and all they do is follow it.

Running out a non-striker is clever from a team perspective. Sometimes it is the bowler who notices it, but sometimes it might be the mid off fielder who spots it and then let's the bowler know what to do

Right, I think it's savvy from a team perspective but I think the trick is more in being able to effectively share information maybe? I'm trying to compare it to baseball pick-offs where catchers communicate with the pitcher, but those require more skill. Maybe teams start having mid-on specifically look for the non-striker breaking early.

 

[Line and Length]

is frequent failed Mankad's a problem tho? I've never seen it. It's more common to see a bowler pull out of their runup and and warn the batter than it is to see a failed attempt. Zampa's was probably the first and he just executed it poorly, the batter was still out if he did it correctly.

This emphasises that which @SteveNZ stated. To abort a runup, a fast bowler needs to pull out well before his delivery stride. It is far easier for slow bowlers to execute a Mankad type run out.
I still maintain it is easier for non-strikers to watch the bowler's front foot, If the rule was modified to require a run out to be made before the bowler's front foot is grounded it would be easier for all concerned. The umpire is watching the bowler's front foot and it would become easier for him/her to determine if the front foot was grounded or not, rather than trying to determine if the bowler's arm was vertically extended.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

If the rule was modified to require a run out to be made before the bowler's front foot is grounded it would be easier for all concerned.

*laughs Hafeez-ishly*

 

[cnerd123]

This emphasises that which @SteveNZ stated. To abort a runup, a fast bowler needs to pull out well before his delivery stride. It is far easier for slow bowlers to execute a Mankad type run out.
I still maintain it is easier for non-strikers to watch the bowler's front foot, If the rule was modified to require a run out to be made before the bowler's front foot is grounded it would be easier for all concerned. The umpire is watching the bowler's front foot and it would become easier for him/her to determine if the front foot was grounded or not, rather than trying to determine if the bowler's arm was vertically extended.

The only problem I see here is a bowler 'faking' out a batter by pausing in their delivery stride slightly as to get the batter leaving their crease.

 

[Starfighter]

is frequent failed Mankad's a problem tho? I've never seen it. It's more common to see a bowler pull out of their runup and and warn the batter than it is to see a failed attempt. Zampa's was probably the first and he just executed it poorly, the batter was still out if he did it correctly.

Nowhere near as common as time being wasted due to batsmen engaging in gamesmanship and pulling out from facing deliveries due to alleged distractions that apparently didn't exist forty years ago.

 

[Line and Length]

Nowhere near as common as time being wasted due to batsmen engaging in gamesmanship and pulling out from facing deliveries due to alleged distractions that apparently didn't exist forty years ago.

Particularly noticeable as lunch, tea and stumps breaks approach.

 

[honestbharani]

We are anyways talking about changing a rule, so just say that no-ball is not always supposed to be a ball that has to be bowled. The issues with dinging is it will be subjective and can raise controversies while what I am proposing is an objective way to cut out frequent mankads.

Just give a penalty run and make the next delivery a free hit. You don't actually have to call it a no-ball or whatever, @cnerd123