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

[Jono]

I recall an England skipper deciding to give Grant Elliott his marching orders after Sidebottom had absolutely flattened him going for a single, after an umpire gave him (Collingwood) an opportunity not to do so. I tell this story for no other reason than we went on to win, and Styris/McCullum/Vettori giving it the **** you's across the changing room stars at The Oval was the sweetest moment I think I've ever witnessed in following my side.'

Yeah it was Collingwood, and the umpire pretty much pleaded with him not to appeal too.

I hope for consistency Vaughan, Aggers and go thought that was wrong too.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Who seriously listens to what Michael Vaughan has to say? He's a Grade A Pillock.

 

[ankitj]

England v Sri Lanka, 5th ODI, Edgbaston : Mahela Jayawardene defends Jos Buttler Mankading | Cricket News | England v Sri Lanka | ESPN Cricinfo

"I thought it was disappointing," Cook said. "There's a line and that line was crossed here. I've never seen it before in the game and I was pretty disappointed by it. As captain of your country, there are certain ways you want your team to operate. And obviously he is fine with it. He has said he will do it again."You don't know what you would do if you were put in that situation, in the heat of the moment, until you are. I'd like to think I wouldn't do it, but I suppose you just don't know.
"I haven't been in the situation, as captain of England, where I have had to make a 'spirit of cricket' call. Paul Collingwood had one a few years ago and admitted afterwards that, in the heat of the moment, he probably made a mistake.
"If he was properly trying to steal a single, I could possibly understand it. But he was half a yard out of his crease. It's pretty disappointing."

Blah.

 

[Jono]

Cook had to make a spirit of cricket call in making his team ****ter by not having KP in it ftr.

 

[ankitj]

Also, perspective from bowling side by Jayawardene:

We analysed our game after Lord's. They took 22 twos in the last 12 overs. Ravi Bopara and him ran riot. And most of the time they were taking starts that are not legal by the written laws. We just wanted to make sure we got a fair chance. We warned them and we warned the umpires, but they didn't listen to us, so we had to take the right steps.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't think it makes for a great spectacle, but that's not SL's problem, is it? They legally dismissed England's man-most-likely-to to give themselves a better chance of winning. It used to be called "professionalism" back in the day. The rest is just (hey) pommie whinging.

I think it looks worse to some corners of the English meedja because there's the aspect of a chap with a (frankly) dire action running out England's apple-cheeked new hero; it's like Freddie Kruger murdering Bambi.

I personally have far more of an issue with a chap who'd just been reported for said dire action (meaning essentially the umpires think he chucks it) being allowed to play after the initial report.

Plus side tho, at least Senanayake Mankads with a straight arm.

 

[Jono]

Modern Lanka team doesn't take **** - see that T20 when they went hard at Maxwell. Mahela wag.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I just wonder which team is going to win "Spirit of cricket" award. It is usually one of NZ or SL, but we are a pack of match fixers and they do this


Also, I don't know if this has been posted - but the great (greatest) man of the game summed it up brilliantly:

For the life of me, I can't understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the nonstriker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the nonstriker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage.

Sir Donald John Bradman

 

[Daemon]

I just wonder which team is going to win "Spirit of cricket" award. It is usually one of NZ or SL, but we are a pack of match fixers and they do this

Bit harsh on the current NZ team, they didn't really have much to do with this

Australia can't win it because of the broken ****ing arm incident
England because they certainly showed no spirit in trying to play Johnson
India because of Dhawan mocking Watson amongst many other things
WIndies because Benn is back in their squad and Sammy is not
South Africa because they could have won that test against India but wussed out

Which surprisingly leaves Pakistan and good guy Misbah. Misbah, WAFG.

 

[SteveNZ]

I will always remember Trott going back into his crease to ensure that Bell would be the one that got out He knew what was going on, Bell was being dumb ala Murali/McCullum a few years back when Sanga got his ton and Murali got out of his crease to celebrate.

Mmm...so subjective isn't it? I was of the belief Murali was dumb, but Bell was confident it was four, therefore lunch. The ball was never dead in the Murali dismissal, why he thought he could just aimlessly walk down when the ball was in fine leg's hands was beyond me. Therefore at the time, I was quite happy to send him on his way without any word of a spirit of cricket problem.

 

[mono]

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.

You are quite right. But i guess its time the batsmen start paying more to the bowlers delivery stride.

on a different note, cook should be happy that his point about butler's lack of maturity is validated in all of this

 

[Goughy]

- It's within the rules of the game
- It's a penalty for batsmen who get an unfair advantage (even slight) by backing up too much
- The game is batsmen-favored already - wouldn't this add an interesting element to the game?

Why is it against the spirit of the game when a batsman standing his ground after edging a ball is considered fair play?
If anything, umpires should stop asking the fielding captain the question once a batsman is mankadded - if it's out, it's out.

See highlighted part. It isnt within the rules of the game if in delivery stride. I just saw the recent incident and it wasnt out. A ****ing joke dismissal.

 

[The Sean]

See highlighted part. It isnt within the rules of the game if in delivery stride. I just saw the recent incident and it wasnt out. A ****ing joke dismissal.

It wasn't out according to the MCC Laws of Cricket (Law 42.15). But it was according the ICC's playing conditions (rule 42.11), which is what governs international cricket.

 

[Burgey]

It's the playing condition I have a problem with tbh, for reasons outlined earlier in the thread. I think the MCC law covers it well enough.

 

[Prince EWS]

See highlighted part. It isnt within the rules of the game if in delivery stride. I just saw the recent incident and it wasnt out. A ****ing joke dismissal.

It wasn't out according to the MCC Laws of Cricket (Law 42.15). But it was according the ICC's playing conditions (rule 42.11), which is what governs international cricket.

Yeah indeed. They've recently changed the rules for international cricket, making it out. It wouldn't be out in park cricket or even domestic First Class cricket, I don't believe.

 

[Goughy]

Fair enough. Bizarre that there is a difference. Mankading has always been cheap and I thought the MCC law was a great addition. I am really suprised to hear that it isnt used in international cricket. There was a reason why the law was introduced and it was one way the game had improved from 20 years ago. Clearly I had overestimated cricket administrators and not for the first time.

Playing condition clearly illustrated in http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/534454.html so England can have no real complaints. It is a **** rule though. Mankading was a curse on the game and the MCC rule is far superior.

 

[Furball]

What's your views on Broad refusing to walk after edging? Were the runs he scored after the incident cheap?

The Spirit of Cricket dictates that you don't question the umpire's decision. Broad was quite right to mark his guard for the next ball having been given not out.

 

[Adders]

I hate the term "spirit of cricket"..........it is a blight on our game and I'd love to never hear it used again. Pompous old crap that may have been relevant in the early 20th century but sure to **** isn't now.

Just like any other sport we have a rule book.......play by it and leave the ethical/moral/spirit bull**** at home.

 

[Ace4]

I hate the term "spirit of cricket"..........it is a blight on our game and I'd love to never hear it used again. Pompous old crap that may have been relevant in the early 20th century but sure to **** isn't now.

Just like any other sport we have a rule book.......play by it and leave the ethical/moral/spirit bull**** at home.

Well said. Its not a hobby anymore. Umpires do their work and you do yours. Make your team win.

 

[Dan]

It's the playing condition I have a problem with tbh, for reasons outlined earlier in the thread. I think the MCC law covers it well enough.

Yep, this is exactly my stance on the issue.