The Mankad: Ashwin-Thirimanne, ethics and the law in the gentleman’s game
Roar Rookie By dan-talintyre, 21 Feb 2012 dan-talintyre is a Roar Rookie
Cricket was almost changed forever this afternoon in the ODI match between India and Sri Lanka and not for the better either.
Sri Lanka were cruising really at 4/196 with ten overs remaining in the match, when Ravi Ashwin, as he was bowling to Angelo Matthews, Mankad-ed Thirimanne.
A Mankad? He stopped his delivery, and knocked off the bails at the non-strikers end because Thirimanne was out of his crease.
According to the rules of cricket, Ashwin is well within his rights to appeal and if the appeal is lodged formally, then Thirimanne must be given out.
However, according to the ethics of the game, you just don’t do it; the exception being when you warn the batsman about creeping down the pitch and if he continues to do so, then the run-out is allowed.
But it does raise an interesting point as to who monitors the rules of cricket. Or rather, who monitors the ethics of cricket? Can you monitor them?
Thirimanne was 45 not out at the time, with a strike rate of 100 and clearly the danger man for Sri Lanka. Get him out and India will restrict Sri Lanka to a smaller total, which may, in turn win them the match.
Now fortunately for everyone, the wise head of Tendulkar probably made sure this appeal didn’t go through, and everyone went back to play as normal.
But for one fleeting moment, it did look like the ethics of the once-called gentleman’s game were going to be out done by the rules of the game. If you thought we’d come a long way since the infamous “underarm” incident between Australia and New Zealand, you’d be right, but only to an extent.
The Ashwin-Thirimanne incident almost brought cricket back 20 years and very nearly reopened a closet that should have been bolted shut a long time ago.
Just goes to show that when a side is losing, they truly will do anything to get themselves a win — even if that means abandoning all the ethics and morals of a game to do so.
Because at the end of the day, winning truly is everything.
No side will ever be measured by how they played the World Cup final; they will only be measured by whether they won the final or not.
Let’s just be thankful that despite his lack of runs this summer, Sachin Tendulkar had enough common sense to urge the captain Sehwag to withdraw the appeal.
For if he hadn’t, then that truly would be a disaster — not just for India, but for the progress of cricket worldwide.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Cricket, Indian cricket, Lahiru Thirimanne, Mankad, Ravi Ashwin, Sri Lankan cricket
February 21st 2012 @ 5:51pm
Geoff Lemon said | February 21st 2012 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
I fail to see what’s supposed to be unethical about it. You don’t have to warn a batsman about leaving his crease before stumping him. The rules are known by all concerned. Why is a batsman due a warning? And why should he feel entitled to leave his ground before the ball is bowled?
February 21st 2012 @ 5:57pm
Dirk said | February 21st 2012 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
Bit of whinging about the ethics of the game here but what values are on display when you look at the supposed ethical expectation that a batter be warned before he can ‘morally’ be given out mankadded?
1. We’re telling the non striker that he can try and cheat if he’s good enough to get away with it.
2. The non striker supposedly has reason to believe the if he tries to do the wrong thing, then the person he is trying to cheat will show him mercy.
Both these values simply don’t do the game of cricket any good if they’re applied to all facets of the game, so how about this: if you choose to try and back up a long way, don’t whinge about it for one second if someone else gets you out legitimately, fairly, and within the rules of the game. After all, you’re the sneaky little bugger that created the problem by trying to gain an unfair advantage without being noticed, aren’t you?
February 21st 2012 @ 6:00pm
Suneer Chowdhary said | February 21st 2012 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
I am really sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more. My basic question is how does one define ethics?
The reason why the question got raised here was because Mankaded is a rare form of dismissal. It is this rarity that makes one question a form dismissal that is well within the law.
Till about a few months ago, ‘Mankaded’ was not a part of the law. It had been outlawed a few years ago. Then, in the latest release of the ICC rule-book, they made changes to incorporate this particular law, which allowed the bowlers to dismiss the batsman if he backed too far. Are we trying to say that the ICC was trying to contravene the very spirit of the game it advocates? I certainly don’t think so.
Let’s compare it with the Greg Chappell-underarm issue. That was a loophole in the law. After that incident, the ICC moved to outlaw underarm bowling because despite being within the rules, it was against the ethics. Will the ICC now move to outlaw Mankaded, the very rule they strove to include recently? Again, I don’t think so.
February 21st 2012 @ 7:45pm
Dirk said | February 21st 2012 @ 7:45pm | Report comment
Don’t be sorry that you disagree, I couldn’t care less.
Its been a part of at least some cricket rule books for at least 10 years though, I was part of a team but sent someone on their way. It didn’t feel right at the time, but if he wasn’t trying to steal runs unfairly then he wouldn’t have given us the chance to run him out. There’s no loophole in the law, the rule is perfectly within the spirit of the game because a gentleman wouldn’t be trying to flirt with the spirit of the game by trying to steal runs in the first place.
February 21st 2012 @ 8:02pm
Suneer Chowdhary said | February 21st 2012 @ 8:02pm | Report comment
Dirk,
My response wasn’t to you, but to the piece – I am on your side of the fence, the batsman was out to me.
February 21st 2012 @ 8:45pm
Dirk said | February 21st 2012 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
Ha ha sorry I got a email saying you had responded to mine! good to know there’s quite a few rational cricket fans getting about
February 21st 2012 @ 7:26pm
Brett McKay said | February 21st 2012 @ 7:26pm | Report comment
from an ethical perspective, I’d put this with the switch-hit. But within the rules, both are allowed and well covered..
February 21st 2012 @ 8:46pm
sheek said | February 21st 2012 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
Rubbish,
This bollocks about the bowler warning the batsman first before trying to run him out in another delivery, is just that, bollocks.
The batsman backing is trying to gain an advantage, & the bowler is entirely within his rights, & the rules, to run him out.
This is not namby-pamby.
No ethics disaster involved here. The batsman takes the risks, he pays the penalties…..
February 21st 2012 @ 10:22pm
Ian Whitchurch said | February 21st 2012 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
What Sheek said.
February 21st 2012 @ 10:36pm
Doug said | February 21st 2012 @ 10:36pm | Report comment
I think the “tradition” of warning the batsmen comes from the assumption that the non-striker would only be unintentionally out of his crease. In ODIs and 20-20 I cant see that is the case. So for those forms of cricket being Mankaded is the fault of the batsmen and they shouldnt expect any mercy.
February 21st 2012 @ 10:39pm
Al said | February 21st 2012 @ 10:39pm | Report comment
I’m for the warning in Tests and One Dayers. To me, both forms of the game haven’t changed enough over the years to warrant a change in thinking in this area. As a bowler I wouldn’t feel any satisfaction from having that in my wickets column and although I would do it after the warning (if the non-striker is taking the piss), it wouldn’t bring me any joy.
In today’s game, the dill was a bit to relaxed the first time and needed a wake up call. After that though he kept doing it and deserved to be sent packing. What was he thinking anyway? Still, I like the current way of thinking, if it’s good enough for Jardine, it’s not good enough for anyone else.
As for Twenty20s….Mankad to your hearts content.
February 21st 2012 @ 11:35pm
dan-talintyre said | February 21st 2012 @ 11:35pm | Report comment
Definitely agree Al. Because he kept doing it again and again afterwards, he should have been given out.
Should be part of the game in Twenty20.
I deliberately this provocatively to assess responses better. I think he should have been given out, even though I don’t think he was trying to gain an advantage — he was simply walking down the crease as the bowler came in and probably had not given it much thought.
Is an interesting thought process though.
February 22nd 2012 @ 12:05am
Vas Venkatramani said | February 22nd 2012 @ 12:05am | Report comment
As I understand it Al, mankads are not creditted as wickets to the bowler, similar to run-outs, hitting the ball twice, obstructing the field, handled the ball, and timed out.
Seems most of us are in agreement that mankads should be permitted because the same “spirit of cricket” that Tendulkar was upholding is the same one that Thirimanne was damaging by attempting to gain an unfair advantage in the first place.
On that sense, I find Tendulkar’s gesture, coupled with Dhoni’s decision to recall Ian Bell in England last year, as curious examples of India trying to uphold themselves as playing within a friendly spirit, when in actual fact it was relenting on two dismissals they were completely entitled to and let go of because of some idiotic piety on their part.
It’s a shame that spirit of cricket is defined as either this kind of idiocy or the one that dictates a player to stand his ground even after the umpire has sent him walking. It seems this whole thing is laid in out in such basic black and white, that you can’t play hard but fair (which is the standard that everyone should aspire to)…
February 22nd 2012 @ 8:59am
Al said | February 22nd 2012 @ 8:59am | Report comment
In my comment Vas, I’m meaning it’s listed as a bowler’s wicket figuratively. After all, the only person involved in the dismissal is the bowler.
What you say about Thirimanne is correct, although I wouldn’t put it as damaging the spirit of the game, just taking advantage of the Indians generosity. I believe they should have run him out because as we found out he was trying to take an advantage repeatedly. They just got it backwards. Run out first and recall then start giving warnings? I found that a little bizarre. Sometimes though it’s not deliberate, sometimes it’s just a non striker not thinking or being a little too relaxed, particularly in tests or when there is no pressure on.
I agree that I seem to be in the minority on this one which I find a little surprising but everyone’s listed plenty of good reasons why. I suppose the fundamental reason I’m reluctant to see the mankad is that it’s outside the time of actual play. I’ve always understood that the ball is dead once it comes back to the bowler until the point of delivery on the next ball. If the bowler doesn’t realease the ball during delivery it’s a dead ball so to me, it’s never been even part of play. That’s why it’s different to any othe mode of dismissal.
February 22nd 2012 @ 9:36am
Sydney Ump said | February 22nd 2012 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Not quite correct, the ball becomes live once the bowler commences his run up or if he has no run up the swing of his arm that delivers the ball. If it is not delivered then it is Dead Ball. As to the ethics the ICC clearly saw a regular issue of batsmen creeping down the wicket to gain an advantage and changed that part of the Law (not Rule).
If a batsman attempts to steal a run by being way down the track and the bowler doesn’t run him out the Umpires can always penalise the player by applying Law 42 and awarding penalty runs.
February 22nd 2012 @ 10:48am
Al said | February 22nd 2012 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Good one Sydney, didn’t realise that was the actual law. If this is the case here’s a good question for you (and anyone else interested)….
Say the batsman facing bats out of his crease and the bowler commences his runup, could the bowler throw to the strikers end while running in and run the batsman facing out before he has bowled the ball? Seems like the same thing as a Mankad to me…
February 22nd 2012 @ 10:57am
Dirk said | February 22nd 2012 @ 10:57am | Report comment
If the striker was far enough out of his crease to make running him out a possibility, I’m certain that most fast bowlers would prefer to try and make him retire hurt rather than get him run out. I know what I’d be aiming for.
February 22nd 2012 @ 8:01am
Dave said | February 22nd 2012 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Yehhh
He was Not Out anyway
Law 38.3 (Batsman Not Run Out)
subsection ‘c’ says if the ball is not touched by a fielder after the bowler enters his delivery stride, then the batsman cannot be run out. This is the section that is ‘the mankad law.’
I think we can all agree that Ashwin was in his delivery stride.
February 22nd 2012 @ 8:03am
Dave said | February 22nd 2012 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Also please note that Thirimanne was IN his ground before the delivery stride was reached. In my opinion it was well-judged backing up.
February 22nd 2012 @ 8:28am
Tony Tea said | February 22nd 2012 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Ha ha. “Gentleman’s game.” Good one.
February 22nd 2012 @ 8:44am
mushi said | February 22nd 2012 @ 8:44am | Report comment
I think people struggle with the whole concept of ethics if they are saying it is “well within the law”.
February 22nd 2012 @ 9:26am
Dirk said | February 22nd 2012 @ 9:26am | Report comment
The same would apply to anyone who suggests that trying to steal runs unfairly is acting ethically, I assume?
February 22nd 2012 @ 11:21am
mushi said | February 22nd 2012 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Well no because you can’t “steal” runs and be within the rules.
The whole concept of ethics is that they are social “guidelines” outside the written laws. Using the argument “the rules allow it” just means the person doesn’t understand what ethics fundamentally are so it is really difficult to have the conversation if they aren’t actually discussing ethics.
What you may be arguing is that both acts are unfair and therefore there should be not be treated differently. But the ethics of cricket do suggest they are not treated the same, as Tendulkar’s and Sewag’s actions suggest.