Another Mankading

[Day Man]

I don't think you understand what a 'fact' is.

Also things should always be considered in context, irrespective of whether or not that context ultimately changes or influences anything.

A batsman being found outside his crease is a matter of fact, surely? If he wasn't outside his crease at the moment of the bails being flicked off, that's an incorrect visualisation of a line decision and has nothing to do with the actual validity of the type of dismissal itself.

 

[Day Man]

This is an important piece of context, ftr. Whether or not it changes your opinion, it should damn sure be considered rather than holding an opinion based on a single frame.

The single frame is simply a tool for making the line decision. The context is what is a matter of disagreement and I have to assume you did not bother reading my entire post because it makes the context pretty clear. I did edit my post in due course.

 

[Dan]

I think I missed the edit, yes.

And that post re it being an important piece of context is directed more generally, not just at you

 

[CricAddict]

The entire problem exists because teams don't Mankad often enough. It is not at all difficult for batsmen to play within the rules but they don't because the spirit of cricket helps them in these cases.

Is there a restriction on number of Mankads/match? If teams start doing it every ball, the game will lose its value.

 

[hendrix]

I am all for Mankading when the batsman is trying to steal yards but in this case here it looks like he would have been in the crease if the bowler had continued with actually bowling. Hard not to feel for the non striker.

This is an important piece of context, ftr. Whether or not it changes your opinion, it should damn sure be considered rather than holding an opinion based on a single frame.

Unless the batsman was walking backwards, how is it possible that he was run-out before the bowler was in his delivery stride, yet would have been in the crease when the bowler actually delivered the ball?

 

[Spark]

man, CW really outdoing itself today in the "baffling absolutist lines of argument" stakes

 

[honestbharani]

Absolutely agree dat a failed Mankad shud be a no ball. And a free hit in LO games if I may add dat.

 

[Spark]

The batsman was found short of the crease when the bails were taken off. That is the only point of concern here. Where he might have been before and after is utterly irrelevant, just as it is for every other line dismissal, be it a run out or stumping.

What was he doing out of his crease at any point at all between the time the bowler started his run up and reached alongside him? If the batsman plays the dangerous/stupid game of juggling his position before the actual moment of delivery, he's entirely to blame for his predicament. Stay behind the crease until you see the ball being delivered - it's as simple as that.

The only reason that stupidity or mis-judgement on the part of the batsman in getting run out or stumped is considered to be "in the spirit of the game" while stupidity or mis-judgement on the part of the batsman in being found outside his crease in getting mankaded is (incorrectly) not in some quarters, as one poster previously mentioned, is because some people are used to the former being commonplace and latter rare. That is essentially what it boils down to - an inability to see the facts for what they are for reasons of frequency of occurrence. Any objections to mankading are window dressing borne of a stubborn refusal to acknowledge this basic fact.

Is it cynical to explicitly aim for a mankading? Probably yes. But then one must attribute the same degree of cynicism to a wicketkeeper who sees a stumping coming and instead of flicking off the bails immediately, waits and times the stumping to the moment the batsman falls off balance and loses his position within the crease. For reasons already mentioned, people are loathe to attribute cynicism to that type of calculated stumping as they do to mankading. And that has nothing to do with the spirit of the game and everything to do with a reluctance to get out of one's comfort zone and see how utterly similar they are as calculated plays.

They aren't vaguely similar at all, not least because one involves the striking batsman and thus goes to the contest between bat and ball, e.g. the whole point of cricket. Mankading is just there to make sure the non-striking batsman (i.e. the bloke no one cares about) doesn't cheat.

I have sympathy for your argument, but this is a silly equivalence.

 

[Dan]

Unless the batsman was walking backwards, how is it possible that he was run-out before the bowler was in his delivery stride, yet would have been in the crease when the bowler actually delivered the ball?

...the bowler slowing up to actually effect a Mankad.

When everything in your muscle memory says "don't go near the stumps", you're going to be nowhere near as fluent (or accurate) in getting your arm to break the stumps during your run up. Less of a thing in park cricket where fat blokes toddle in to bowl gentle outies, but in international cricket the bowlers run in pretty fast.

 

[Day Man]

They aren't vaguely similar at all, not least because one involves the striking batsman and thus goes to the contest between bat and ball, e.g. the whole point of cricket. Mankading is just there to make sure the non-striking batsman (i.e. the bloke no one cares about) doesn't cheat.

I have sympathy for your argument, but this is a silly equivalence.

I think that's another differing point of view. In my view, the non-striker is an active zone of play and not a place where the batsman goes to switch off his mind and relax. Batsman need to realise that, and I suppose that's where much of their outrage at mankading stems from. No one likes to be outed as the idiot who doesn't concentrate at his job at all times.

 

[Day Man]

...the bowler slowing up to actually effect a Mankad.

When everything in your muscle memory says "don't go near the stumps", you're going to be nowhere near as fluent (or accurate) in getting your arm to break the stumps during your run up. Less of a thing in park cricket where fat blokes toddle in to bowl gentle outies, but in international cricket the bowlers run in pretty fast.

The bowler has the right to slow down. His pace is irrelevant. The law is pretty clear that the non-striking batsman needs to be found within his crease (as opposed to actually being within it - an important distinction) until the point of delivery. Non-strikers do not get a free pass for an inability to multi-task taking all factors into account.

 

[Spark]

The bowler has the right to slow down. His pace is irrelevant. The law is pretty clear that the non-striking batsman needs to be found within his crease (as opposed to actually being within it - an important distinction) until the point of delivery. Non-strikers do not get a free pass for an inability to multi-task taking all factors into account.

Does the bowler have a right to run in with no intent to actually bowl the ball?

 

[Prince EWS]

Does the bowler have a right to run in with no intent to actually bowl the ball?

>inb4 "do I have a right to do a handstand?"

 

[hendrix]

...the bowler slowing up to actually effect a Mankad.

When everything in your muscle memory says "don't go near the stumps", you're going to be nowhere near as fluent (or accurate) in getting your arm to break the stumps during your run up. Less of a thing in park cricket where fat blokes toddle in to bowl gentle outies, but in international cricket the bowlers run in pretty fast.

ok so what you're saying is the batsman was timing his backing up to the speed of the bowler's run up.

all the the batsman needs to ensure is that he sees the bowler is actually in his delivery stride before he's starting to leave his crease.

 

[Dan]

I don't deny that the onus is still on the batsman to make sure they're aware to the possibility of being Mankaded at any point. But FMD it's cynical, negative play and literally nobody wants to see it become a regular thing where bowlers try to deceive batsmen into leaving the crease for a 'GOTCHA' moment.

inb4 we get 0 plays 0 ties because nobody ever bowls because all they do is attempt Mankads ad nauseum. Surprised Brearley didn't try that in the 80s, tbh. Literally tried every other bizarre tactic he could think of.

 

[Dan]

>inb4 "do I have a right to do a handstand?"

I have a mate who does a mean Spinning Shaun Tait impression. Spins full 360 and slings down an inswinging yorker. I look forward to bowlers running up by doing handsprings and backflips as a part of an attempt to mankad.

"You thought I was entering my delivery stride? Nah, doing a backflip near the stumps and now the bails are off and you're out of the crease. Sucker."

 

[Day Man]

Does the bowler have a right to run in with no intent to actually bowl the ball?

It's certainly debatable. My thinking is that if a bowler is running in with the premeditated and sole intent of effecting a mankad, it's because he's noticed the non-striker gaining an unfair head-start on previous occasions. Therefore the batsman absolutely deserves it and fair play to the bowler. After all, would a bowler really want to look the fool by making it apparent that he's looking to mankad a batsman who's been within his crease all along? A mankad is not a joke and no bowler would want to embarrass himself by making his intentions clear to that effect if there wasn't reason to believe he'd be successful at it. And he wouldn't have reason to believe he'd be successful at it if the batsman hadn't already gained the unfair head start on previous occasions.

 

[Spark]

It's certainly debatable. My thinking is that if a bowler is running in with the premeditated and sole intent of effecting a mankad, it's because he's noticed the non-striker gaining an unfair head-start on previous occasions. Therefore the batsman absolutely deserves it and fair play to the bowler. After all, would a bowler really want to look the fool by making it apparent that he's looking to mankad a batsman who's been within his crease all along? A mankad is not a joke and no bowler would want to embarrass himself by making his intentions clear to that effect if there wasn't reason to believe he'd be successful at it. And he wouldn't have reason to believe he'd be successful at it if the batsman hadn't already gained the unfair head start on previous occasions.

Yeah OK I absolutely do not agree with this at all, let's just say. Usually I'm very much "Mankading is just a much-needed correction for batsmen unfairly stealing quick singles" but I definitely draw the line at the bowler intending to not actually bowl.

 

[Day Man]

I don't deny that the onus is still on the batsman to make sure they're aware to the possibility of being Mankaded at any point. But FMD it's cynical, negative play and literally nobody wants to see it become a regular thing where bowlers try to deceive batsmen into leaving the crease for a 'GOTCHA' moment.

inb4 we get 0 plays 0 ties because nobody ever bowls because all they do is attempt Mankads ad nauseum. Surprised Brearley didn't try that in the 80s, tbh. Literally tried every other bizarre tactic he could think of.

Dan, to ensure smooth passage of play, we've got two options here:

(a) Let the sport respond and evolve by limiting the number of unsuccessful mankads per innings so that it still remains a legitimate mode of dismissal,

or

(b) Ban the mankad altogether, which seems to me akin to throwing away the baby with the bath water.


Decrying the mankad as a mode of dismissal by resorting to slippery slope arguments serves no end.

 

[Day Man]

Yeah OK I absolutely do not agree with this at all, let's just say. Usually I'm very much "Mankading is just a much-needed correction for batsmen unfairly stealing quick singles" but I definitely draw the line at the bowler intending to not actually bowl.

Fair enough, agree to disagree. That's a reasonable line of thought.