The Mankad

[googlyeyes]

 

[TheJediBrah]

And we're back to where we were on page 1

 

[Shady Slim]

feels great to make a thread specially to start **** and it works lmao

brilliant reading this is though

 

[jimmy101]

feels great to make a thread specially to start **** and it works lmao

brilliant reading this is though

Imagine how Vinoo himself feels!

 

[StephenZA]

How has this gotten to 7 odd pages? I mean this horse got flogged to death many years ago.

 

[Starfighter]

How has this gotten to 7 odd pages? I mean this horse got flogged to death many years ago.

Three pages.

 

[Daemon]

How has this gotten to 7 odd pages? I mean this horse got flogged to death many years ago.

Somehow this is the worst post of the thread. I used to respect you Stephen. If you’d said 5 pages I would still accept it but this is just unfathomable.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If a bowler is penalized for overstepping the bowling crease for a no-ball even for smallest of margins, why is it unfair to dismiss the batsman for crossing the same line before the delivery is bowled.

This thread is just people talking over each other not actually bothering to read so I know I should bother. But this is not what anyone is arguing against.

I give it another page before someone posts a variation of that as though it's the discovery of the decade.

 

[vcs]

40ppp sucks. Default setting is the best.

 

[OverratedSanity]

40ppp sucks. Default setting is the best.

Awta. Can't even Google search old posts when it's 40ppp

 

[marc71178]

I don't understand this. When is there ever a failed Mankad? It's literally only ever done as a means to either warn a batsman or run them out. And why would the rule change to try and stop it be an attempt to punish the fielding side.

To me the solution is pretty obvious, at least at an international level (would make the umpires job harder in club/domestic stuff). If a bowler oversteps when bowling, they concede a run. So why not make the batting side concede a run if the batsman is out of the crease when the ball is released. This would completely remove any advantage to be gained from backing up and there would never be a Mankad run out ever again.

More often than not, they don't...

 

[quincywagstaff]

Not surprised by the amount of discussion on this topic; because it's so controversial and happens so rarely it's one of those issues that sets off a trigger in most cricket fans' minds of wanting to discuss it from an ethical and philosophical point of view. Certainly it sets off Twitter whenever it occurs.

Personally speaking, I'm less passionate about it than most and am fairly ambivalent about it. Suffice to say that if a bowler does attempt a Mankad that is unsuccessful they should have to pay a penalty like a no-ball or run deficit. I think that's what annoys those who are against the practice; that it can be done without any downside in consequences on the field.

 

[cnerd123]

Not surprised by the amount of discussion on this topic; because it's so controversial and happens so rarely it's one of those issues that sets off a trigger in most cricket fans' minds of wanting to discuss it from an ethical and philosophical point of view. Certainly it sets off Twitter whenever it occurs.

Personally speaking, I'm less passionate about it than most and am fairly ambivalent about it. Suffice to say that if a bowler does attempt a Mankad that is unsuccessful they should have to pay a penalty like a no-ball or run deficit. I think that's what annoys those who are against the practice; that it can be done without any downside in consequences on the field.

Excessive failed Mankad attempts could be seen as deliberate time wasting and/or excessive appealing by the fielding side, and each of those carry on field and off field penalties

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm pretty ambivalent about the Mankad but it is a very different thing to decieving a batsman with a real delivery. Running out the non-striker just isn't the same thing as bowling because it doesn't involve a ball being bowled, and that's what starts cricket.

It feels off kilter to me when a bowler deliberately tries to Mankad a batsman by making him think he's about to bowl it, because he's got the batsman out on a technicality without doing any cricket. It's like making the opposition walk through a confusing corrior in the pavilion so as they get timed out, or sending someone to deflate the tyres on the opposition team bus.

Fine, if a batsman is out by his own ****up and can't keep his bat in place. But what we saw in the U19s (and in the world T20 first round a few years ago) and celebrating it like they took a real wicket is just not kosher IMO.

Yeah, obviously I was being slightly Jesuitical in comparing a Mankad to a Bosie.

The broader point I was making though was about the way criticism of the Mankad is always couched in moral terms (deception or deceit) when the wrong 'un's purpose is to deceive the batsman.

I hope the game never descends to the level where the fake-out Mankad is even vaguely seen as a legitimate tactic, but if a non-striker is genuinely taking the Mickey Bliss with his backing up and the bowler hasn't shaped to enter his delivery stride I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have his bails whipped off. Although I'd always prefer a warning first, being an old git and that.

Think we're devoting a awful lot of angst to a topic that's broadly a non-issue though.

If Wiki is to be believed (standard health warning applies) the last player to be Mankaded in a test was Sikander Bakht by Alan Hurst (a quick, ftr) in 1979. Cricinfo scorecard.

It looks as if he might've been trying to sneak a quick one, being the last man in and Asif Iqbal on 134no at the other end.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah, obviously I was being slightly Jesuitical in comparing a Mankad to a Bosie.

The broader point I was making though was about the way criticism of the Mankad is always couched in moral terms (deception or deceit) when the wrong 'un's purpose is to deceive the batsman.

I hope the game never descends to the level where the fake-out Mankad is even vaguely seen as a legitimate tactic, but if a non-striker is genuinely taking the Mickey Bliss with his backing up and the bowler hasn't shaped to enter his delivery stride I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have his bails whipped off. Although I'd always prefer a warning first, being an old git and that.

Think we're devoting a awful lot of angst to a topic that's broadly a non-issue though.

If Wiki is to be believed (standard health warning applies) the last player to be Mankaded in a test was Sikander Bakht by Alan Hurst (a quick, ftr) in 1979. Cricinfo scorecard.

It looks as if he might've been trying to sneak a quick one, being the last man in and Asif Iqbal on 134no at the other end.

Yeah I mostly agree. I don't even care for the warning tbh. But the example that started this thread is a bowler in a world tournament wheeling off celebrating after getting a bloke by 'gotcha' mankad. Gets me a certain chafe in the briefs, if not an outright tangle.

 

[Red]

I'm not going to argue about whether completely changing the way the game is played is good or bad. Just be aware that what you are suggesting is a huge change to the way the game of cricket is currently played at most levels, not just elite. Maybe it would be for the better and be fairer, idk, but I'm going to reiterate that it's simply not going to happen.

Haha. How is what I am suggesting a "huge change"?

 

[Red]

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.

It's not ridiculous, at all.

Quite simply, every game has rules. This is one of the rules of the game. There's a line.

If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be run out. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.

It's literally written into the laws of the game (Law 41.16).

 

[Burgey]

For the 4,825th time this thread, we are all aware of that. What was being advocated by hb and others is something quite different. Moreover, there are plainly examples where cheating clowns such as Ashwin have been allowed to get away with something quite contrary to the rule you've cited. You're the one with the glib "Meh, just follow the rule" bullshit in here, but you don't seem to want it to apply to those effecting the run out, because somehow you're of the misguided view a non-striker batsman should habitually watch the ball beyond the point where it's out of the bowler's hand.

 

[Burgey]

Excessive failed Mankad attempts could be seen as deliberate time wasting and/or excessive appealing by the fielding side, and each of those carry on field and off field penalties

lol yeah, teams are so often disciplined for excessive appealing, see it all the time.

Also, is there a reason why you're of the mistaken view you're the only person on this website who's done an umpiring course?

 

[TheJediBrah]

This thread is just people talking over each other not actually bothering to read so I know I should bother. But this is not what anyone is arguing against.

I give it another page before someone posts a variation of that as though it's the discovery of the decade.

Glad you said it. I was going to post something very similar to this yesterday. Usually it's just ***** who will come in at stage 5 of a discussion, fail to understand the topic and post an essay summarising stage 1 of said discussion as if it's a revelation, but in this thread everyone's doing it