Mankading - Why is it not within the "Spirit of the Game"?

[Riggins]

MICHAEL VAUGHAN Run-out by Senanayake was against spirit of the game and would not have been allowed on my watch.

he would have been too busy putting out a deep point tbf

this is so good. i might steal it and tweet it at him. (withe obligatory **** reference)

 

[Riggins]

also against the spirit of the game michael, standing your ground after you know you've been caught and using lollies on the ball to get your pie throwers moving one off the straight.

 

[marc71178]

They didn't want to shake hands after the game for some reason.

Apparently one person didn't want to shake hands last night when his team went out after they'd won....

 

[Dan]

The thing with this is though, under the actual laws of cricket Buttler did nothing wrong. It's a weird playing condition to alter tbh.

If you look at where Buttler is when Senanayake stops his action, he's about two inches out of his ground, after the back foot would have landed. By the time the bails were taken off, he's six feet down the track -- because it would usually be legal (and safe) for him to be there; after that amount of time had elapsed, the ball would have reached the striker and been played.

The problem with the playing condition, as it stands, is that you can literally just stop your action and take the bails off as the batsman backs up normally. Anybody to have played cricket knows that you time your backing up based upon when you expect the ball to come out of the bowlers' hand; you have forward momentum going on. That was the reason for the rule where once the back foot lands, you can't go for the Mankad -- because the batsman has committed to backing up by that point.

 

[hendrix]

The problem with the playing condition, as it stands, is that you can literally just stop your action and take the bails off as the batsman backs up normally.

no.

Once you start your action (I read that as moving your bowling arm above the horizontal to bowl the delivery), you can't mankad a player.


All the batsman has to do is ensure that the bowler has begun his bowling action.

 

[hendrix]

But yeah, I see what you're saying about the back foot.

 

[Spikey]

just dont your leave your crease until the ball does, maybe?

 

[Dan]

But the backing up process doesn't start exclusively as the arm comes above the horizontal and the delivery swing starts. Buttler isn't standing there with the toe of his bat just over the line, stretched out so that when his protractor shows Senanayake's arm is a fraction above the horizontal he can explode down the pitch.

He starts off walking, his bat trails, as Senanayake begins his action the bat comes closer and closer to the line. About the same time as his arm breaches the horizontal, Buttler's forward momentum takes the toe of the bat out of the crease. In this case, he was a touch early and obviously in the wrong; I'm not denying that for a second.

But as the non-striker, your focus isn't on "oh is he going to stop just before he enters the delivery swing to try and run me out", it's on what the striker is doing down the other end. You can't watch the bowler's arm through the action and then track the ball out of the hand; you look towards the striker, watch to see how he plays the ball, then decide whether to run or not.

If you watch the video, you can see that Buttler is looking straight down the pitch, not at Senanayake. He keeps walking forward even after Senanayake pulls out of his action before the delivery swing. Your momentum is going forwards, and you're of the impression that the ball is going to be delivered. You're going to exit your crease whether he bowls the ball or not.

 

[Spikey]

butler didn't learn anything from justin langer, gotta keep your eyes on the ball

 

[Riggins]

If you keep doing it after you get warned you're a ****ing idiot.

 

[Prince EWS]

But as the non-striker, your focus isn't on "oh is he going to stop just before he enters the delivery swing to try and run me out"

It should be if you've just had a mankadding warning. This didn't come out of the blue; he should've been more alert to that. What his focus was on is precisely the problem.

 

[Dan]

just dont your leave your crease until the ball does, maybe?

Yeah, that's all well and good - but you aren't going to react to the ball actually leaving the bowler's hand. Your focus is elsewhere, so you're leaving the crease when you would normally expect the ball to be leaving his hand.

Basically, if you don't notice that the bowler has decided to pull out of that delivery, you'll end up four feet down the pitch by the time the bails are broken, even if you've followed the law to a tee.

The bails are not broken at the same time the ball would usually be delivered; there's a massive lag there, so the batsman is of the belief that the ball should be halfway to his mate by that point -- making where he is completely legal if the bowler hadn't pulled out.

 

[Prince EWS]

Basically, if you don't notice that the bowler has decided to pull out of that delivery, you'll end up four feet down the pitch by the time the bails are broken, even if you've followed the law to a tee.

And if you don't notice the bowler's sent down a wrong'un then you'll get out lbw. You have to be alert to all potential modes of dismissal; that's how batting works.

 

[hendrix]

Your momentum is going forwards, and you're of the impression that the ball is going to be delivered. You're going to exit your crease whether he bowls the ball or not.

You know how when you're fielding at the edge of the circle, you start walking from further back behind the circle?

That's all the batsman need to do.

Start walking from further back.

He'll still have momentum, but he'll be inside the crease until he actually sees the ball travelling down the pitch. This is the way it should be IMO.

 

[Burgey]

Don't think Mankading and calling a chuck are similar things to be appreciated at a similar level.

The bold part is the weak part of your argument. The non-striking partner trying to get an advantage diminishes the actual contest between bat and ball.

Course they're the same. The pretext for Mankading is the non striker is cheating by taking an unfair advantage. So is a chucker.

And this presupposition that the non striker who gets Mankaded is trying to steal a jump is the problem with the playing condition as it stands. Players time their backing up with the expected release of the ball. As it stands, a bowler can simply not let go of the ball and run out a batsman doing no more than backing up as per usual. In effect, the bowler can baulk the non striker into leaving his ground and getting a run out. I don't think that's right, though as I said earlier, it's an understandable tactic for sub continental teams traveling away as it's the only way they will get wickets.

 

[Burgey]

And if you don't notice the bowler's sent down a wrong'un then you'll get out lbw. You have to be alert to all potential modes of dismissal; that's how batting works.

That's maybe the most stupid comparison I've read since someone compared Tony Abbott to a competent Prime Minister.

 

[Burgey]

Anyone who suggests the non striker watches the bowler's delivery stride and the ball as it is actually released from the hand has not played cricket at a level beyond that where Mr Otto is the wicket.

 

[Dan]

You know how when you're fielding at the edge of the circle, you start walking from further back behind the circle?

That's all the batsman need to do.

Start walking from further back.

He'll still have momentum, but he'll be inside the crease until he actually sees the ball travelling down the pitch. This is the way it should be IMO.

And half the time the fieldsmen are still outside the circle when the ball is delivered. Let's get pedantic about 2 inches there as well.


I agree that the batsmen shouldn't be allowed to leave early, but Mankad-ing is not the solution; the time lag between the offence and the bails being broken means that you aren't punishing the batsman for the specific offence of leaving early, you're punishing them for daring back up. Even if they do it correctly, within the laws, they can be out in that manner. I mean, Buttler was 4 feet down the pitch when the bails were removed; he was less than 4 inches out of his ground at the time the delivery swing would have started. If his bat were behind the line at the time the delivery swing would have started, Senanayake could have gone through the same process and Buttler would still have been 4 feet down the track and hence out.


Warn the batsmen, then disallow any runs

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyone who suggests the non striker watches the bowler's delivery stride and the ball as it is actually released from the hand has not played cricket at a level beyond that where Mr Otto is the wicket.

Oh of course they don't. I'm not suggesting they do. I'm just suggesting they should.

 

[Dan]

Next time you play a game of cricket, try doing that and also being in a position to see where the batsman has hit the ball, and immediately judge whether a run is available.

Then reduce the time you have to go from looking at the bowler's hand the the batsman to where the ball has gone by a factor of one third.