The Mankad

[Burgey]

The laws state the batsman can't leave until the bowler is "normally expected to deliver the ball" (or do they, the whole things a bit of a mess) , so literally the only problem with every Mankad controversy has been the umpires not actually making the decision and determining whether the dismissal was a valid Mankad according to the law as written. I don't see why the umpires involved couldn't just say "yeah that's not actually out according to the rules"

Indeed. This is exactly the point. If a bloke is taking off early it's not a problem to run them out. Where it becomes a problem is this idea the non-striker needs to watch a bowler beyond the point where they normally deliver the ball in order to ensure they aren't being faked out which, as Howe has noted, is precisely what's happened on a few occasions, and which imo would be a woeful development in the game if it became widespread. We've reached a situation at elite level cricket now where umpires aren't watching for no balls, because they don't have time to look up and ensure they aren't decapitated by a straight drive, yet apparently we expect a batsman to watch a bowler beyond the point of normal release, then look down the deck to see what's happened after they've ensured they aren't going to be run out by a bowler pretending to deliver the ball. Then they're expected to react and call etc to take a run (or not)? It's ridiculous.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Indeed. This is exactly the point. If a bloke is taking off early it's not a problem to run them out. Where it becomes a problem is this idea the non-striker needs to watch a bowler beyond the point where they normally deliver the ball in order to ensure they aren't being faked out which, as Howe has noted, is precisely what's happened on a few occasions, and which imo would be a woeful development in the game if it became widespread. We've reached a situation at elite level cricket now where umpires aren't watching for no balls, because they don't have time to look up and ensure they aren't decapitated by a straight drive, yet apparently we expect a batsman to watch a bowler beyond the point of normal release, then look down the deck to see what's happened after they've ensured they aren't going to be run out by a bowler pretending to deliver the ball. Then they're expected to react and call etc to take a run (or not)? It's ridiculous.

fantastic point. Really reinforces how absurd the suggestion is that a non-striker should literally watch the bowler bowl the ball before backing up, and how such an idea shows lacking a basic understanding of the game of cricket. This is what happens when keyboard experts who's cricket experience is limited to local D grade think they know better.

As ***** said earlier, the examples put forward of bowlers "faking out" a non-striker and mankading him are simply against the rules and, if given out, poor umpiring. They should absolutely not become allowed for within the rules. Tbh they should be called no-balls and the bowler warned, that would stamp it out pretty quickly.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Difference though is that the feet are as far away from the ball as is possible to get on a bowler so to speak, whilst watching the release would mean tracking the ball from the start anyway. If being hit by a return drive is a concern, probably keeping one's eye on the ball at such an early point would be better

 

[the big bambino]

Pardon this ex D grade cricketer swipe the keys of the exec room and piss all over the urinal, but wtf else is the non striker meant to watching? Can't recall the mankad ever being an issue when I played and only an occasional one in cricket I've watched. After I stopped playing I played indoor cricket for years and years. Loved it. Suited me as far as time goes and also playing with mates and family then a drink afterwards. The biggest difference (of many) was the way the indoor game treated mankad. Legit form of dismissal, no hard feelings, look out next time. It felt more critical in indoor to back up and steal ground for a run.

So I worked on a stance that gave me extra ground, while leaving my bat behind the line and I could eyeball the bowler until he released the ball. I never felt this to be a burden or that I was participating in some earth shattering change to the game or was even aware of misunderstanding basic cricket. I mean what's there not to understand? Keep your bat grounded until the ball's in play - what am I missing? So back to the question of wtf am I as non striker meant to be watching? Its pretty much to make sure the ball is released before I leave my crease. Whether that's the bowler's hand or a point on the pitch at around a length it doesn't matter. Its your job. That's why you're there. Someone mentioned what sort of a licence we'd give non strikers if the rule isn't there. So we have to agree the rule is necessary. if its necessary then it has a consequence for non strikers. Understand them. I think the first victim of the mankad, at least the one that led to the coining of the term, was Bill Brown. He thought it a fair form of dismissal and did not blame the bowler. I hope Bill Brown played cricket to an acceptable level that would have his opinion respected.

 

[DriveClub]

Cricket is one of those games I've observed where the players and fans come from a ridiculous sense of entitlement. Up there with tennis but at least tennis doesn't give awards for playing in the 'Spirit of Tennis'

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah brah you're being a jerk.

Now pardon this ex D grade cricketer swipe the keys of the exec room and piss all over the urinal

ffs how else are you supposed to put forward the point though? I'm not claiming to be a great cricketer by any means but I'm just stating the facts. Backing up is one thing that is clearly very different at different levels of cricket (judging by some of the comments here). If you can think of a way of pointing that out, or demonstrating the clear disconnect at play here without hurting people's feelings then I'm all ears.

 

[the big bambino]

same game same rules brah. Any level of cricket. Btw I edited the first bit out. Sorry about that.

 

[Burgey]

Cricket is one of those games I've observed where the players and fans come from a ridiculous sense of entitlement. Up there with tennis but at least tennis doesn't give awards for playing in the 'Spirit of Tennis'

Tennis is ****ing ridiculous. They're more precious than cricketers by a mile. Wanting complete silence from a sporting crowd, and the amount of psychobabble bullshit in every point the commentators go on with - "He's making a statement there for later." "He's really trying to establish a mental edge here." Really, because the **** just hit a forehand where the other bloke wasn't. Whoopde****ingdo.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Rather than insulting people as D-grade cricketers or PS4 players, let's get another opinion:

The non-striker should always back-up. He does not have to stand behind the crease. So long as the bat is grounded behind, that is sufficient. I made a practice of standing outside with the bat inside as demonstrated by the photograph, and I moved off immediately I saw the ball in the air after it had left the bowler's hand.

Some players have adopted the habit of moving off as the bowler completes his run. The danger of this method is that the bowler is quite entitled to retain the ball (as his arm goes over in the delivery stride) and knock the bails off at the bowling end. If the non-striker is then out of his ground he is run-out.

Some people frown on this practice as being sharp, and think the bowler should first issue a warning. I cannot see this at all. The non-striker, by backing up too far or too soon is in effect cheating. He gaining an unfair advantage which may save him being run-out in a photo finish at the other end.

The law clearly states that the non-striker may be run out at the bowler's end if he prematurely leaves his ground, and I have seen it happen in Test cricket. Hence my dictum—watch for the ball in the air before leaving the safety zone.

Obviously, these statements were made before the laws were changed and changed again. They are from a book titled The Art of Cricket. It was written by some bloke called Bradman, who apparently played cricket at a level at least as high as anybody in this thread, if not higher.

 

[TheJediBrah]

same game same rules brah. Any level of cricket. Btw I edited the first bit out. Sorry about that.

evidently not though

Yes; rather than insulting people as D-grade cricketers or PS4 players, let's get another opinion:



Obviously, these statements were made before the laws were changed and changed again. They are from a book titled The Art of Cricket. It was written by some bloke called Bradman, who apparently played cricket at a level at least as high as anybody in this thread, if not higher.

Not really too relevant then are they?

 

[the big bambino]

evidently not though

yep, pretty much the same. Leave your ground get run out.

Not really too relevant then are they?

Yep, pretty much the same. Leave your ground get run out.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Not really too relevant then are they?

A way to really—and deliberately—miss the point there. The laws currently differ in that one is not allowed to retain the ball. Bradman waited until the ball was released to back up. Now, best batsman in the world and all, but surely then other people might be able to at least give it a go.

 

[TheJediBrah]

yep, pretty much the same. Leave your ground get run out.

It should be the same, but evidently it's not, based on some of the comments here.

Yep, pretty much the same. Leave your ground get run out.

no, the law has literally changed.

A way to really—and deliberately—miss the point there. The laws currently differ in that one is not allowed to retain the ball. Bradman waited until the ball was released to back up. Now, best batsman in the world and all, but surely then other people might be able to at least give it a go.

As I said earlier, they probably could give it a go, but it's a very big change and I can't see it happening

 

[Burgey]

A way to really—and deliberately—miss the point there. The laws currently differ in that one is not allowed to retain the ball. Bradman waited until the ball was released to back up. Now, best batsman in the world and all, but surely then other people might be able to at least give it a go.

He also played in the back foot no ball era, which I'm sure impacted on points of release.

 

[Victor Ian]

The real issue is why moving forward is called backing up.

 

[cnerd123]

The real issue is why moving forward is called backing up.

This has always bothered me

 

[jimmy101]

Probably had something to do with "having their back", as in backing them up with support.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

As I said earlier, they probably could give it a go, but it's a very big change and I can't see it happening

People need to get over it. There is no entitlement to leaving one's crease before the ball is released. I don't think it's that big a change anyway, only people make it out to be a big, difficult change in order to avoid having to alter what they feel entitled to do, a sort of learned helplessness as it were.

He also played in the back foot no ball era, which I'm sure impacted on points of release.

Watching as much footage as possible from back then, the difference—if any—would have been extremely slight

 

[Burgey]

Yeah it's unclear what effect, if any, it may have had. I suspect perhaps more wrt spinners than with quicks, many of whom had a big back foot drag

 

[jimmy101]

I've always thought it to be similar to stealing a base in baseball. You're welcome to try it if you want, but it comes with a pretty big risk.

I also see no problem with running out a batsman via mankad if you warn them about it beforehand.