Another Mankading

[harsh.ag]

It's in a morally ambiguous area because non-strikers backing up is generally accepted in the game, and that is why, if you wish to conduct a Mankading (which you are well within your rights to do), you must warn the opposing team first. They will change their strategy with the knowledge that you're a stickler for rules rather than convention.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I don't see any problem if a bowler runs someone out whenever he's trying to gain an added advantage intentionally by going outside the crease. However in this instance the batsman was not trying to gain that advantage I believe. His bat was on the line and probably believed he was inside. These conversations sound telepathic but it's possible to come to a conclusion of some sort by looking at the actions of individuals.

 

[neville cardus]

Respect your views but disagree. The very reason why codifications came into existence was to sort out the ambiguities in what constitutes morality and make them enforceable.

The spirit of any law, like the spirit of cricket, is by definition uncodified. But that doesn't make it hard to follow.

I'd reduce it to a simple injunction: Don't be an arsehole.

 

[neville cardus]

The spirit of any law, like the spirit of cricket, is by definition uncodified. But that doesn't make it hard to follow.

I'd reduce it to a simple injunction: Don't be an arsehole.

Whenever an incident like this occurs, the internet is rife with faux-tough guys who affect not to know what that means. I find it very difficult to take them seriously.

There's no law against lying or adultery, but most sensible people are satisfied that lying and adultery are wrong. Social mores don't require systematisation or rationalisation. Either you know what it means to behave like a decent human being, or you do not.

The same obtains (although your mileage may vary) for sport.

 

[Senile Sentry]

The spirit of any law, like the spirit of cricket, is by definition uncodified. But that doesn't make it hard to follow.

I'd reduce it to a simple injunction: Don't be an arsehole.

Lol, this is becoming a personal issue for you.

 

[Senile Sentry]

It's in a morally ambiguous area because non-strikers backing up is generally accepted in the game, and that is why, if you wish to conduct a Mankading (which you are well within your rights to do), you must warn the opposing team first. They will change their strategy with the knowledge that you're a stickler for rules rather than convention.

Why should they? If it's in the laws, then the opposite teams better be aware of the fact. And cricket is always played on rules, it's not an option, unless mutually agreed beforehand.

 

[neville cardus]

Nothing is wrong, in your mind, unless it's against the law? I've met a number of sociopaths who feel the same way.

 

[Garson007]

It's in a morally ambiguous area because non-strikers backing up is generally accepted in the game

I never understood why this is the case. It was probably one of the first things we learnt as kids was to not leave your crease until the ball has been bowled.

I don't see any problem if a bowler runs someone out whenever he's trying to gain an added advantage intentionally by going outside the crease. However in this instance the batsman was not trying to gain that advantage I believe. His bat was on the line and probably believed he was inside.

A batsman is out when he unintentionally falls on his wicket. He's also out if he is unintentionally out of his crease for a stumping.

 

[sledger]

no, I disagree entirely there. Laws are meant to reflect morality. When they do not, they must be changed.

This is a contentious assertion tstl.

 

[OverratedSanity]

no, I disagree entirely there. Laws are meant to reflect morality. When they do not, they must be changed.

Laws, yes. Rules in a sport, no.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I never understood why this is the case. It was probably one of the first things we learnt as kids was to not leave your crease until the ball has been bowled.


A batsman is out when he unintentionally falls on his wicket. He's also out if he is unintentionally out of his crease for a stumping.

It's never a batsman's intention to play a ball in the air towards a fielder. What are we discussing here?

 

[weldone]

I haven't seen the game, but generally I am strictly against the notion that it's immoral to do Mankading without warning. Warning before Mankading is similar to warning the opposition captain about the fact that there are no cover fielders before hitting a cover drive.

Cricket is not all about the bowler, the batsman and the fielders. The non-strikers also have some obligations. It's not a place to relax and switch your mind off the game. He should get out if he fails to do his job properly. Morality has nothing to do with it. If his bat was on the line then he is out - keep the bat well in if you're not sure, it's better to be safe than sorry.

If the bowler entered his run-up and didn't enter the delivery stride, then the non-striker is to blame in this case. And o yes, WI has every right to celebrate in that case. Stop this pathetic moral policing. Some people are happy to celebrate after winning a war by killing thousands (I am not pointing finger to anyone), but go to cry-baby mode when a cricket match is won in an entirely lawful way.

 

[simsini]

I would usually agree that the bowler is perfectly within his rights to 'Mankad' the batsman if he is deliberately trying to gain an advantage. This is not what happened in this case. The bowler didn't even make a delivery stride, he just ran down the pitch and knocked the bails off and the batsman only left his crease in the same frame as the wicket was broken. The batsman was clearly not trying to gain any advantage at all and if the bowler had tried to bowl normally, you wouldn't know if the batsman would have been out of his crease. Basically, this stinks big time!

 

[Garson007]

Why does it need intent? Would you also not run-out a batsman that slips or loses his bat?

 

[indiaholic]

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.

 

[neville cardus]

Stop this pathetic moral policing.

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

Some people are happy to celebrate after winning a war by killing thousands (I am not pointing finger to anyone), but go to cry-baby mode when a cricket match is won in an entirely lawful way.

This is, by some distance, the most ridiculous thing I've read on CricketWeb.

 

[neville cardus]

I would usually agree that the bowler is perfectly within his rights to 'Mankad' the batsman if he is deliberately trying to gain an advantage. This is not what happened in this case. The bowler didn't even make a delivery stride, he just ran down the pitch and knocked the bails off and the batsman only left his crease in the same frame as the wicket was broken. The batsman was clearly not trying to gain any advantage at all and if the bowler had tried to bowl normally, you wouldn't know if the batsman would have been out of his crease. Basically, this stinks big time!

Precisely. As I said in the OP, this was a shot in the dark. Ngarava was well within his crease when the decision was made. Paul even noticeably slowed his run-up -- consciously, I suspect, in a bid to catch him out.

In short, Keemo Paul is an arsehole.

 

[neville cardus]

But, of course, there's no rule against being an arsehole. Which apparently makes it just fine in the eyes of most contributors to this thread.

 

[weldone]

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.

good point

It should happen more often. It doesn't because some cricketers don't want unnecessary bad reputation caused by some stupid people with their warped sense of morality.

 

[indiaholic]

But, of course, there's no rule against being an arsehole. Which apparently makes it just fine in the eyes of most contributors to this thread.

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.