Why is Mankading 'against the spirit' of the game?

[Jono]

Really? I stand mistaken then.

 

[bryce]

All my life ever since i've played junior cricket it has worked the exact same way IIRC. If a bowler is sick of a batsman getting a head-start, mankad him. If the batsman is caught out of his ground he is given a warning by the umpire that if he happens to be caught short of his ground via mankad again in that innings, he will given out.

 

[bryce]

Whoops only just saw the date on this

 

[pup11]

The law is perfectly fine as it is.

The batsman can be runout at anytime before the delivery stride.

The law is to stop the bowler faking to bowl and then running a batsman out as they are moving anticipating the delivery. Franky that is fine as its preventing clown like behaviour.
Once the act of delivery has started then lets focus on delivering the ball rather than playing silly beggars.

I can see where you are coming from, but if a batsman keeps on leaving his crease even before the ball is delivered, even after the bowler having warned him, then i see nothing wrong in the bowler running him out, in a game that's already loaded against the bowlers, the batsman then also getting an unfair head-start for a run just isn't fair or within the spirit of the game.

 

[wpdavid]

Haha, almost Tufnell-Gooch-McConnell-esque that.

Apart from Burgey's ump actually applying the rules of the game.

 

[Burgey]

Shane Warne stood waay behind the bowling crease for the last ball, and did start to run before the ball was sent, but he was at the bowling crease - more or less - when the ball was delivered, except with good running momentum that was worth a few yards of distance.

Very clever move that from Warne, Balaji wouldnt have been able to Mankad him as Warne was just about _behind_ Balaji as he leapt into delivery stride.

Warne's one of those blokes who's so cluey on little things like that. I recall that one-dayer in the WI when Aus needed 3 to tie (I think). Ball was hit to the outfield, no chance of the 4 to win being scored, crowd invaded and stole the stumps. They run two, Warney waits for a second until the stumps are uprooted then takes off for the match levelling 3.

Bloody hilarious, and clever to boot.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't know what the previous warnings were like, but the Kapil Dev incident, in isolation, is pretty ordinary from Dev.

 

[SJS]

Basically, running a batsman out at the bowler's end was considered unsporting because it was taken for granted that the batsman, in his anxiety, overstepped in error rather than by design.

Unfortunately times have changed. You cant say today, for sure, that a batsman was not deliberately trying to get an advantage over the bowler. Hence, although I am pretty old fashioned in these matters, I think we should be okay with running out a batsman for being out of the crease in advance.

After all we do condone running out a batsman who is walking up the wicket to pick up something without realising that the ball is 'technically' not yet dead. Surely if this is condoned because the batsman is being 'stupid' for not knowing his cricket laws well enough or remembering them to the letter al the time, we should be okay with punishing a batsman for walking out of his crease while the ball is not yet released by the bowler.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Mankading is only 'against the spirit of the game' in the view of the batsman who has screwed up. Three warnings is leeway enough. Kirsten embarassed himself.