The Mankad: Ashwin-Thirimanne, ethics and the law in the gentleman's game

everyone is talking about Thirimannes incident but I think the real issue was with Sangakkaras wicket cause pause before balling can make a batsman loose his balance.

No problem. Batsmen get a free hit if bowlers overstep. The crease is marked and easy to see and when the ball is live it is the responsibility of the batsmen to be in their ground. Are we going to let batsmen run from1 2 3 or 8 metres out of their ground?

If this is unethical, then how is checking for a no ball during an lbw doubt referred to the 3rd umpire ethical? If the batsmen can get away with leaving the crease before the ball is delivered, why can't a bowler get away with something an umpire didn't pickup. Why does a law exist if it is meant to embarrass an individual who decides to follow it, and praise it's offenders? ...and guess what, if this situation had occurred during India's batting, the batsmen would have left for the pavilion thinking of leaving the pitch being an ethical route. Nobody questioned the ethics when the batsmen didn't leave, but didn't hesitate in calling "R. Ashwin's act unethical."

Getting a head-start is an old old ploy in many games, witness 'early' starts by sprinters, runners in baseball attempting to steal bases etc. However, false starts in sprints now mean instant disqualification( as Usain Bolt well knows), and base stealers can be picked off in baseball without any ethical issues clouding the issue. Why then should this strange concept of ethics persist in cricket and be given lip-service to by the likes of Jayawardene and Clarke, is it just gamesmanship aimed at the Indians? That too after the ICC rule-change had been promulgated in ordert to level the playing field. There are many other anomalies in cricket, the granting of leg-byes, the negation of lbw decisions for balls pitching outside the leg-stump etc. All these need to be dealt with if the game is to remain understandable and viable. Meanwhile,this so-called 'mankad" rule ( again it's a travesty to use this great all-rounder's name in this context) should be enforced immediately by umpires. I daresay an Aleem Dar or a Simon Taufel would have upheld the appeal after checking the batsman's position with the third umpire.

Question? Is a "mankad" the removal of the bails when a non-striking batsman leaves his crease as the bowler comes into bowl, in which case a run out would be the correct term or is "mankad" an attempt to drag the batsman out if his crease by faking or running through the bowling crease and then turning and breaking the wickets? Thirimanne had clearly left the crease before the bowler had reached the bowling crease in which case he is out clearly, runout! My problem with the ruling is that a bowler could conceivably do as I mentioned happened above, upon noticing that a non-striker is getting very close to or leaving his crease by the narrowest of margins as the bowler bowls the ball. Luring the non-striker away from his crease and then turning to knock off the bails. It happened in a game I played last weekend. Some discussion on this would be interesting.

Certainly see where you're coming from Suneer and agree with many of your points. I can also see the majority of people agree with you that Thirimanne should have been sent back. I think part of that though comes from the hindsight of his actions after the incident where on numerous occasions he did the same thing. I'm just one of those warning first guys. I know Ashwin says he warned him but it's one of those tree falls in the forest situaltions. If no one hears or sees Ashwin do it, did it really happen. If he did and the umpire heard it then they should have upheld their appeal. I'll put my hand up and say before this incident I was unaware of the law change 10 years ago from the mandatory warning (or at least I've forgotten) and that says something because I watch a fair bit of cricket. I'd be happy to bet some or maybe many of the players were also unaware or had forgotten about the change. This doesn't change my view that due to it's current perception, the history that goes with the act and the stigma involved that a warning should be given. I will say this however. This is the perfect opportunity for the ICC to say why it was changed (eg. players push for runs now more than ever) due to: professionalism in cricket, value of each and every run gathered or stopped, external pressures to perform, one dayers and twenty20, etc.). Furthermore, the statement should stiplulate that this is no longer a grey area in conduct or against the spirit of the game (due to the forementioned reasons). No warning is required and batsman need to leave straight away each and every time they are stupid enough to let it happen. That way they can get everyone on board with it and people will start to view it differently. Perhaps a little more like baseball where it is the objective of the runner to steal a base. We'd see many more bowlers doing it and it may even add another dimension to the game. You certainly had one worthy advocate, The Don himself agreed that Mankad was right to send Bill Brown packing (twice in fact) and although opinion was split at the time it seems Brown himself was more upset with himself when it happened without a warning in the Test than with Mankad. That may have been because he'd already had it happen by the same bowler in an earlier tour match. Anyway, a very interesting discussion and well worth exploring.

I probably should have used the phrase, 'what they perceived a potential hot potato for them'. We have seen in the past that the umpires have been attached a bit of a blame for not acting with common sense (there was a Muralitharan-McCullum incident some years ago) and they could have thought this was probably one of those instances. I agree I could have been a tad less harsh on them than what I was in my comment above but I still believe they tried to play it safe instead of taking a decision, a stand. Majority in the media agree that the batsman should have been given the marching orders, and hypothetically speaking had the batsman been ruled out, I don't see the controversy raging as much as it is right now. My surmise is most of even the non-Indian media personnel would have agreed that it was the batsman's mistake and the bowler/team was within their rights to get him out. I was surprised to see Mahela respond the way he did - almost as if he was unaware of the rules and without contrite. After all, he would have seen that his player was backing up too far even after that appeal/warning. I guess it is a matter of perception here and we will have to agree to disagree - if I was the captain of the national side and if one of my bowlers had collided with the non-striker while running between the wickets and that resulted in a run-out, I would have probably recalled the batsman. Somewhere otherwise, it wouldn't be right. Not for this one though, the batsman was either foolish to not know the rules or rather smart to exploit what he thought was a loophole. Either way, I think the whole incident serves as a nice eye-opener for batsmen world over who look to get away like Thirimanne tried to.

How can the umpires be passing on a potentially hot potato? No one would blame them for giving it out. As you say, it's in the rule book therefore they're just doing their job. Ashwin would have been the one copping it from portions of the media and public. You can't tell me it wouldn't be a bigger deal than it is if the batsman was given his marching orders. Mahela's already been getting stuck into them over it and that's after they withdrew their appeal. The thing with these sort of incidents is that it gets attached to the entire team. Sure, Ashwin will carry much of it but many people will bundle Indian cricketers in general with it and the captain more so. If I was captain I would appreciate being consulted before I have to front the media to explain/defend the actions of my team. This is not to say Ashwin was wrong, that's a different argument. The fact is, this is the first of it's kind for 20 years and the first since the rule change. By the law it may be open and shut but as in life, not everything in cricket is black and white.

Al, I am with you about umpires needing to show discretion about certain issues - trying to step in the way in case players get too vocal, running batsman out when the ball may be dead or in case where the batsman and the bowlers have collided and a run-out been the result. My blaming of the umpires stems from a simple fact - my belief that it was an open and shut case of the batsman being out. This is a law which was specifically added to the rule-book last year to prevent instances of non-strikers from taking advantage of the previous law. This new law is as straightforward as run-out, bowled, caught or the rest. An umpire will never ask the fielding team to reconsider any other appeals, nor should it have happened here. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, in this instance, it seemed to me that the umpires were passing on a potential hot potato in their hands, on to the captain - who was equally wrong - to avoid any controversy been attached on them (the umpires).

I disagree with you Suneer on the umpires taking a step back and giving them the opportunity to think about what they are doing. Billy Bowden cops plenty of criticism for different reasons and in many cases I've agreed with the criticisms but in this instance credit where credit is due (to him and Reiffel). People are always calling for the umpires to show discretion and match awareness in difficult situations. Communicating well with the players is paramount to this being effectively done. This was a highly unusual situation (if it wasn't why are we all talking about it today) and it is good they gave everyone including themselves a chance to reflect in the heat of the moment on their decisions (aside from whether they were right). Not often do the players get this chance because at the time it's difficult to understand the ramifications of their actions. With all the media and public scrutiny on players (not to mention money from endorsements and sponsorships) this is now more important than ever...

It is interesting to note that Virender Sehwag, the acting captain of the side, has said that the reason why they recalled Thirimanne is because they wanted to avoid controversy. A stunningly wrong reason for the recall, if at all there could be one. Whether the batsman was stealing a run by backing up too far or whether he did not know the rules (because they had been changed last year) or whether he had dozed off, it should hardly make a difference. Being aware of the rules and remaining mentally present in the current match situation is a part of being an international player - either way, the umpires had no business to ask the captain to rethink the appeal and the Indian side had no business to act gracious just because they wanted to avoid controversy.

Don't see where ethics comes into the picture. If you bowl a bouncer at the batsman and he falls on his wicket while taking evasive action will you call him back because of so-called ethics. Another example, if the batsman slips while running would you abort the run-out appeal ?

Laws are laws. The Ch 9 commentators were talking about Mankad a couple of weeks ago - specifically while it had been out of the game for a number of years that it had been re-introduced in 2011 by the ICC and is again a legitimate reason for appeal. Just because it isn't a frequently used means of appeal doesn't mean it should never be used. Since its reintroduction there has been some conjecture as to how many bowlers will opt to 'mankad'. A quick web search shows a batsman has been “Mankaded” on only six occasions in international cricket, the most recent being Kapil Dev running out Peter Kirsten in 1992. There was, however, the instance when Courtney Walsh refused to run out a batsman in this way during the 1987 Cricket World Cup event though the West Indies needed to win that game. Clearly it remains controversial but everyone knows (or should know) it can happen.

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.

Here's another idea to put an end to all this Mankad stuff. Why not make it a short run if the non striker is out of his ground before the ball is bowled? It would have to be adjudicated by the 3rd umpire as it would be impossible for the on field umps to judge but it's pretty easy to see if they have a dedicated screen showing them. As long as it doesn't slow the game down then it might work. Once a few were pulled up on it, I guarantee batsman would stop doing it. Just a thought....

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.

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...

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.

The same would apply to anyone who suggests that trying to steal runs unfairly is acting ethically, I assume?

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.