Another Mankading

[indiaholic]

But until the time the laws are changed to maybe get in the one run penalty or something similar, it is morally wrong to blame the team who uses a perfectly legal form of dismissal just because the batsmen have been protected by a social custom.

 

[weldone]

It's "moral policing" to tell people not to be arseholes?

Trying to win his country a cricket match in an entirely lawful way is the furthest thing from being an arsehole.

 

[neville cardus]

Again, then, to translate: It's right if it's lawful.

Presumably you feel the same way about lying and adultery?

 

[neville cardus]

Let me try and explain this. There is no rule against it but there is a societal problem with mankading. Because it is frowned upon, the batsmen do not consider it to be legit mode of dismissal and their practices reflect this. No batsman in international cricket considers the possibility of being mankaded because it is so rarely used and they know that the team doing the mankading will have to face some criticism for their actions. Any time a team decides to mankad they are doing this against a batsman who has not factored this into the possible set of events. That is why they are being an arsehole: because they are violating a social convention.

The solution is not to depend on people not being arseholes. All that does is it allows the batsmen to be the arsehole by taking a start content in the knowledge that he is safe. The solution is to use mankad as a legitimate form of dismissal at par with the run out.

In the grand scheme of things mankading is probably equal to the bowler over stepping the crease. The penalty is a run and I would be in favour of a run being deducted each time somebody tries to get an early start. But every time they attempt it, they have to face the penalty: big or small.

It's peculiar sort of mind which pardons all conduct save that which violates the law. Sounds pretty slavish to me.

And you are aware, aren't you, that contra bonos mores is itself a legal concept?

 

[weldone]

Again, then, to translate: It's right if it's lawful.

Presumably you feel the same way about lying and adultery?

Nah I didn't say it's right if it's lawful. But Mankading is both right and lawful. You clearly don't feel so. So, can you please elaborate why Mankading isn't right?

'Lying and adultery' is huge spectrum - I won't generalise by saying it is always right or always wrong.

Now, let me ask 2 questions to you:
1. Why don't you create a new thread every time a batsman nicks and doesn't walk, every time a fielder appeals for a grassed chance, or every time a cricketer is unnecessarily sledging another?

2. Imagine a non-striker who knows a bowler (e.g. Courtney Walsh) who will never perform Mankading. If the non-striker now willingly takes advantage of that fact then isn't he being an arsehole? What does your moral code say in that regard? If yes, then will you create a thread every time such a thing happens and the bowler doesn't bother? (i.e. one thread per ball basically) I have seen such things many times. The batsman takes advantage every ball, the bowler either doesn't even notice or is too good to even warn the non-striker.

 

[neville cardus]

Nah I didn't say it's right if it's lawful. But Mankading is both right and lawful. You clearly don't feel so. So, can you please elaborate why Mankading isn't right?

I'm afraid I can't. Not, at any rate, in terms you'd understand. To your mind, nothing in cricket is wrong unless it falls foul of the rules. I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.

'Lying and adultery' is huge spectrum - I won't generalise by saying it is always right or always wrong.

This is a cop-out. You're allowed to give general answers in reply to general questions.

Now, let me ask 2 questions to you:
1. Why don't you create a new thread every time a batsman nicks and doesn't walk, every time a fielder appeals for a grassed chance, or every time a cricketer is unnecessarily sledging another?

Because I have a life.

2. Imagine a non-striker who knows a bowler (e.g. Courtney Walsh) who will never perform Mankading. If the non-striker now willingly takes advantage of the that fact then isn't he being an arsehole?

He sure is.

If yes, then will you create a thread every time such a thing happens and the bowler doesn't bother? (i.e. one thread per ball basically).

Are you serious? You can't be. Not unless you're very, very stupid.

 

[weldone]

In other words, people have 2 options:
1. Conform to neville cardus' warped moral codes that he said can't be explained or justified by himself.
2. Try to win a cricket match for their country playing smart cricket.

 

[neville cardus]

Out of interest, three related questions:

1. Do any of you actually play cricket?
2. Do you practise what you preach?
3. How many cricketing friends has this made you?

 

[neville cardus]

In other words, neville cardus loves to call people arseholes who don't conform to moral codes defined by neville cardus that can't be explained or justified by him.

The other option people have is to try and win a cricket match for his country playing smart cricket.

Your prose looks a lot like your logic.

 

[mr_mister]

Holy **** another thread here turning into a philosophy lecture room debate

 

[weldone]

Haha questions 2 and 3 really throw light on the root of the problem. That's exactly what I pointed out. More people don't do it not necessarily because they hate it from the core of their heart but rather some of them are afraid of bad reputation (losing 'cricketing friends' in your words)

 

[weldone]

Your prose looks a lot like your logic.

If someone doesn't give me 1 minute after my post to edit grammatical errors then according to my warped sense of morality he is an arsehole.

 

[cnerd123]

Holy **** another thread here turning into a philosophy lecture room debate

Such is life on CW lol.

Out of interest, three related questions:

1. Do any of you actually play cricket?
2. Do you practise what you preach?
3. How many cricketing friends has this made you?

I think it's both fair to call the Mankader and asshole and still respect that what he did is fair and within the rules of the game. There isn't an argument here. Just two sides of the coin.

 

[neville cardus]

Haha questions 2 and 3 really throw light on the root of the problem. That's exactly what I pointed out. More people don't do it not necessarily because they hate it from the core of their heart but rather some of them are afraid of bad reputation (losing 'cricketing friends' in your words)

Ah, so it's society's fault, is it? If only it weren't so dashed intolerant, the Mankaders of the world would out and proud.

 

[neville cardus]

"We're here! We're arseholes! Get used to it!"

 

[weldone]

If someone doesn't give me 1 minute after my post to edit grammatical errors then according to my warped sense of morality he is an arsehole.

"We're here! We're arseholes! Get used to it!"

ok

 

[neville cardus]

I think it's both fair to call the Mankader and asshole and still respect that what he did is fair and within the rules of the game. There isn't an argument here. Just two sides of the coin.

It's about standards. What are we prepared to tolerate? I'm against underhandedness, even when the rules permit it. Others have more literal minds...

 

[indiaholic]

What are we tolerating?

 

[gvenkat]

The holier than thou attitude and spirit of cricket is a big pile of BS

Simple question : A team requires 2 runs to win the world cup, Batsman nicks, The whole world hears it but the umpire, He is not given out. Will he walk? This was exactly the same situation.

The batsman was trying to take advantage by walking out of the crease. If it was the bowler it would have been a no-ball. So if you don't want to get mankaded, Stay the F... in your crease.

 

[GIMH]

This is a contentious assertion tstl.

Highly contentious