Mankads

[cnerd123]

Because run outs and stumpings are a different breed.

not really. batter out of their crease while the ball is live and the stumps are broken. If that happens at any point in the game the batter is out. We just classify them differently because in runout it's the fielder's effort and usually after the ball has been struck, while in stumping it's the bowler+keeper and usually involves no bat. But fundamentally they're the same principle.

 

[ashley bach]

Hilarious that people can't stop to think about what they're actually saying and avoid making dumb arguments.

At least you're enjoying it then.

 

[ashley bach]

not really. batter out of their crease while the ball is live and the stumps are broken. If that happens at any point in the game the batter is out. We just classify them differently because in runout it's the fielder's effort and usually after the ball has been struck, while in stumping it's the bowler+keeper and usually involves no bat. But fundamentally they're the same principle.

Absolutely true, we do classify them differently.

 

[Xix2565]

At least you're enjoying it then.

Honestly, the charm is wearing off when they remain stubbornly obtuse and incapable of making a point. Almost like they don't know how the game works.

 

[ashley bach]

Honestly, the charm is wearing off when they remain stubbornly obtuse and incapable of making a point. Almost like they don't know how the game works.

The point is that Mankads as a form of dismissal are a horrid part in our game.
Not saying that it's an easy situation to overcome, but confident one day it will be abolished.
Just because this rule was made 2 hundred years ago doesn't mean it's any bloody good.
Rules are made to be broken, and this form of dismissal fits this saying to a tee. One day way down the track, people will look back and laugh
that it ever existed. But that may be 50 or 100 years away, who knows.
I'm not suggesting that we don't ever apply it, but certainly not unless all avenues have been covered and as a very last resort.
Weather you or anyone else likes it or not, the dismissal itself will always go down as scum in a very large proportion of society.

 

[SteveNZ]

See what we are up against @SteveNZ

Its simple, mate. Stay inside the crease till the bowler lets go of the ball else face the risk of being ran out, as fair as any other part of the game. If they feel its against some unilateral spirt of the game they drew up in their head, they should justifiably be told to just shut up and suck it.

Yeah, look this whole thread and back-and-forth would go a lot better if people would think twice in terms of speaking in absolutes, insulting others and generally showing no interest in the viewpoint of the 'other side'. There's a lot of people with different opinions and different experiences of this issue, and not one of us is absolutely right or wrong.

Very compatible to modern day communication where most things occur in echo chambers and people think their side is right and anything that is to the contrary is ripe to be picked apart.

I asked (knowing I could open up a can of worms) whether there was a differing Indian context to this, and you were able to explain that there was. I learned something because of this,I never knew this dismissal was common place. And I see why the passion of India and cricket, and they are from my experience a very transparent people, would mean there's no grey area for Mankads.

Conversely, I wasbrought up in a system where it is a grey area. We were, and still are based on my social media timeline, taught that it is at best a very last resort, and at worst a terrible piece of sportsmanship. There's no right or wrong to either side- although I'm sure some Indian posters would point out its now law so why bother with spirit of cricket? I'm just saying how the two sides see it.

I do wonder why we haven't seen an Indian male do this in an international, and whether they'd be ok if it was done to them in a situation the same as the Dean dismissal. I only ask because I know how id react if they were NZ players and I wonder, seeing the reaction this week, whether it would be ok if the tables turned

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, look this whole thread and back-and-forth would go a lot better if people would think twice in terms of speaking in absolutes, insulting others and generally showing no interest in the viewpoint of the 'other side'.

There's only like 2 people doing that out of dozens tbf, and they do it most of the time not just about this. So I wouldn't consider it a problem causee by this specific issue

 

[Xix2565]

Yeah, look this whole thread and back-and-forth would go a lot better if people would think twice in terms of speaking in absolutes, insulting others and generally showing no interest in the viewpoint of the 'other side'. There's a lot of people with different opinions and different experiences of this issue, and not one of us is absolutely right or wrong.

The point is that Mankads as a form of dismissal are a horrid part in our game.
Not saying that it's an easy situation to overcome, but confident one day it will be abolished.
Just because this rule was made 2 hundred years ago doesn't mean it's any bloody good.
Rules are made to be broken, and this form of dismissal fits this saying to a tee. One day way down the track, people will look back and laugh
that it ever existed. But that may be 50 or 100 years away, who knows.
I'm not suggesting that we don't ever apply it, but certainly not unless all avenues have been covered and as a very last resort.
Weather you or anyone else likes it or not, the dismissal itself will always go down as scum in a very large proportion of society.

So when will the sheep learn how the game of cricket works as well as how to make a consistent argument? I'm eagerly waiting.

 

[SteveNZ]

So when will the sheep learn how the game of cricket works as well as how to make a consistent argument? I'm eagerly waiting.

Does it need to be seen as an argument or the opportunity to find out how other people think and potentially learn something along the way?

There's only like 2 people doing that out of dozens tbf, and they do it most of the time not just about this. So I wouldn't consider it a problem causee by this specific issue

Ok fair enough. It did feel like at one stage there was at least 5-6 people stubbornly thrusting their own opinions in the air as absolute fact.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So when will the sheep learn how the game of cricket works as well as how to make a consistent argument? I'm eagerly waiting.

you should just make this a template response every time someone disagrees with you

 

[SteveNZ]

The point is that Mankads as a form of dismissal are a horrid part in our game.
Not saying that it's an easy situation to overcome, but confident one day it will be abolished.
Just because this rule was made 2 hundred years ago doesn't mean it's any bloody good.
Rules are made to be broken, and this form of dismissal fits this saying to a tee. One day way down the track, people will look back and laugh
that it ever existed. But that may be 50 or 100 years away, who knows.
I'm not suggesting that we don't ever apply it, but certainly not unless all avenues have been covered and as a very last resort.
Weather you or anyone else likes it or not, the dismissal itself will always go down as scum in a very large proportion of society.

Look I hear you mate and we were raised from the same environment. It felt horrid to me initially too,based on how I am conditioned. But it's becoming clear to me that Indians especially see no issue with it, and see it as just another rule that can be followed. I'm not sure that can be scum seeing they are not setting out to break any law or do anything other than hold a batter accountable to what that law says.

Which is why I think the law needs further focus to ensure we don't have a clash of law versus spirit. Neither side can (or should) be criticized because that's the way cricket has operated in their own backyards forever

 

[Xix2565]

Does it need to be seen as an argument or the opportunity to find out how other people think and potentially learn something along the way?

So I learnt that some people maintain outdated views that don't align to the laws of the game but how they feel, what a stunning lesson. And that they refuse to acknowledge this or address any valid points to hold on to their feelings which is pretty stupid. There's nothing to learn here when everything apart from how mad people get when this happens is totally clear.

 

[Xix2565]

you should just make this a template response every time someone disagrees with you

 

[thierry henry]

I always just figured the mankad existed as a theoretical possibility for batters backing up too early, avoided in practice by a gentleman’s agreement to not back up too early and not mankad. What defines too early? The fact that you could be successfully mankaded. A nice, logical, self-contained system.

If we end up with an epidemic of mankads it could only be the result of an epidemic of bad backing up.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I always just figured the mankad existed as a theoretical possibility for batters backing up too early, avoided in practice by a gentleman’s agreement to not back up too early and not mankad. What defines too early? The fact that you could be successfully mankaded. A nice, logical, self-contained system.

If we end up with an epidemic of mankads it could only be the result of an epidemic of bad backing up.

Makes you consider who is to be blame for the controversy, the bowler that did the mankad, or the batter who was supposedly backing-up early consistently during the innings?

 

[Starfighter]

From the Sydney Morning Herald, 17th of November 1947.

 

[thierry henry]

What’s always bothered me tbh is late in an innings or a run chase suddenly non-strikers can run byes straight to the keeper, or 2s where there was never 2 there earlier. It’s ridiculous. Excessive backing up is absolutely a legitimate issue and long has been, we just put up with it for whatever reason.

 

[mr_mister]

Makes you consider who is to be blame for the controversy, the bowler that did the mankad, or the batter who was supposedly backing-up early consistently during the innings?

It's Ashwin for bringing it back to the mainstream after it laid dormant for decades. Cricket fans celebrated an era of peace and prosperity and the spirit of cricket flourished. All the while, Ashwin schemed.

 

[mr_mister]

From the Sydney Morning Herald, 17th of November 1947.

View attachment 33049

It's just not cricket.

 

[Xix2565]

Ah yes, blame the bowler for being smart and not the batter for taking a big risk that didn't payoff. As if we needed more proof on the general elitism present in the minds of idiots.