Why Ashwin's Mankad was a legitimate dismissal

Dude, your response is bang on target! I am critical of Ashwin and Sehwag not because they appealed but because: 1. They did not persist with appeal. 2. Ash did not mankad Thir in the very next ball!! Now, its hell lot of difficult for Indians to get back into the series if not impossible.

Totally disagree on blame being laid with the umpires. I like the fact they had a think about it, let everyone reflect on what had been done and consulted the captain before sending him off. If it's so black and white, why is it being discussed everywhere and why is this the first time in 20 years that it's been done? No one would blame them if they just said on ya bike, they would have known the Indians would wear all the fallout on this one. Good on them for keeping a clear head I reckon.

Ashwin said he warned the batsman but the only person who seems to know about this warning was Ashwin. Everyone who plays knows to warn a batsman you hold the ball next to the stumps when he's out of his ground. You can't say to him, this is your warning when you haven't proven he's done anything wrong. I watched a replay of Ashwin's overs and there was nothing visible I could see that Ashwin warned him.

I'm against the mankad unless it's absolutely necessary (ie.the batsman is taking the piss and has been warned). In all the years I've practiced in grade cricket or played schoolboy level or even played in the backyard or beach, never have I practiced doing a mankad nor seen anyone else practice doing a mankad. This is the reason it is treated differently in people's minds, because it's not why we play the game. We all play the game to bowl, field and bat. That process happens once the ball is realeased from the bowler's hand and finishes when it comes back to him. Everyone seems to be judging the entire mankad issue on this latest incident but not always are batsman trying to "steal runs" or "cheat" or are as blatant as Thirimanne was. More often than not (Twenty20 aside of course) they are strolling down and in or around the crease - not ridiculously out of their crease like Thirimanne was. Then they need to see where the ball goes before setting off on the run. It's not like they're sprinting as soon as it's been released. Mankad just isn't a mode of dismissal that's on their mind. After all, the last one was 20 years ago. Make no mistake, in this instance he deserved to be sent packing. The bigger concern to the batsman though is going too far down and the ball being hit straight to the bowler for him to complete a run out or get a deflection onto the stumps. That should be the real danger in backing up. Sorry, but I'm still for a warning first then mankad to your hearts content if the batsman persists. Seems more appropriate to me.

"I’m sure many who have played the great game would concur that the ‘mankad’ is the dirtiest, cheapest and laziest form of dismissal in cricket field. It stinks." As dirty, cheap and lazy it may be, it may be necessary if the batsman cheats by leaving his crease. That IMO stinks even more. "However, if the non-striker is ridiculously halfway down the track then I’ll comprimise by saying they need a warning." I don't think it's good enough. If the non-striker leaves the crease even by one centimeter, he should be given a warning. If he does it again, he should be automatically dismissed. I think you are giving far too much leeway to the batsman by saying that he needs a warning if 'the non-striker is ridiculously halfway down the track.' If the bowler gets penalized if he moves one foot too far, why shouldn't the batsman be penalized if he is less than 'ridiculously halfway down the track'?

I have to disagree with many on this, but I'm sure many who have played the great game would concur that the 'mankad' is the dirtiest, cheapest and laziest form of dismissal in cricket field. It stinks. However, if the non-striker is ridiculously halfway down the track then I'll comprimise by saying they need a warning.

Kersi, Sheek, No doubt we will discuss this at lunch in a couple of weeks but, on balance, I tend to the view that Ashwin, and Mankad before him, have done nothing wrong. It has long been a fascination to me that those invoking such phrases as "the spirit of the game" continually overlook the fact that the batsman is trying to gain an advantage at the other end. Most of us, at least I know I was, get acquainted with the concept of a batsman backing up in primary school. As such it is very soon made clear that it is possible to be run out if a batsman leaves the bowling end crease too early. Equally, it is also made clear that an inch or two gained at that end might be vital at the wicketkeeper's end if the fieldsman picks up and gathers quickly. With this is mind I am amazed that anybody would even imagine that the batsman at the bowling end has left his crease absent-mindedly without realising he had done so. Consequently, I don't even consider that a warning is necessary first. Just run him out. I never left that crease without fully intending to do so. I usually waited until the bowler was in his delivery stride and, presumably, looking at the batsman on strike and concentrating on where he (the bowler) was trying to land the ball. I was out of the crease long before his arm followed through and usually before he had released the ball - and it was all in the name of trying to gain any advantage I could at the other end if a quick single was on offer. My personal view is that this idea of a warning came about because, in those far flung amateur days, some folk could not quite bring themselves to believe the batsman may be leaving his crease deliberately to gain advantage. I'm sure the hard-nosed professionals of county cricket often had a different view but, in those days, only the amateur view carried any weight. In this more professional age we all know the bugger is doing it deliberately and hoping that ideas like "the spirit of the game" still hold water. The very idea that Thirimanne was able to survive the act and then continue to do it afterwards defies belief - and logic. Despite the possible views of the captain if I was Ashwin, or any other bowler, I would have certainly run him out again and happily accepted the noise which may follow. When Mankad did Bill Brown in the Test it was on the back of doing it to him in the previous encounter. What better warning could there be than that. Surely what happened to Brown sixty-five years ago is all the warning any batsman needs. After all, if we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. No sympathy at all I'm afraid - Ashwin, and India, were dudded in this instance.

IIRC Ashwin actually did warn the batsman before running him out. I think Sehwag was going to send him off and Tendulkar convinced him otherwise. The umpires should've have given him out and not given him the option of being recalled.

Batsman who gain an unfair advantage deserve to be run out in this fashion. I know what you mean Kersi by the "Mankad rule" in the Laws of Cricket, but there is no basis for suggesting that the umpires should not have consulted Sehwag. You're happy to laud Sehwag for withdrawing the appeal (and I agree with you on that) but it was the umpires that gave him the opportunity to do so. What would have been better is if Ashwin had threatened to run him out and then not done so, thereby acting as a warning. When he did it again and either Ashwin (or any other bowler) ran him out, it wouldn't be an issue.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, Sheek. The umpire should have declared Thirimanne out. But by asking Sehwag, the umpires put the onus on the visitors. Remember the Ides of 1947-48. Vinoo Mankad did the right thing. Bradman said so. But Mankad got notoriety. Few remember his magnificent Test career, the 1952 Lord's Test, the 1947-48 Melbourne Tests, all-round excellence against all countries, home and away. But almost every one remembers him for his "Mankading". I knew him personally and he was a real sportsman. But how is he remembered? If Sehwag had not withdrawn the appeal, the media would have jumped on the anti-India band wagon. I can imagine a headline in Wednesday's papers: "Loser India show their unsporting nature again", somehow bringing in the Harbhajan-gate.

Hi Kersi, The real culprits of the piece were the umpires, Sehwag & Tendulkar. The law is quite clear on the matter, & Ashwin followed the law, as Thirimanne was trying to obtain an unfair advantage, as all batsmen do at some point. The umpires abdicated their authority by discussing with the senior Indian players, who in turn muddied the whole affair through their contriteness. It might be "nice" of us parents to give our kids an ice-cream every night. But it will also most likely make them fat. By everyone being so "nice' about it, all they have done is cloud an action that was very clear, & an issue well within the laws. Kersi, this is the problem with our lives today - people in authority who lack gumption, or any sense of priority.....

Totally agree, it isn't in the spirit of the game to be 1/3 of the way down the pitch before the ball has even been bowled.

Absolutely! It's reasonable to warn the non-striking batsman first, preferably so that the umpire also is aware of the warning. If the non-striking batsman continues to leave the crease before you are into the bowling stride, he's an idiot and deserves to be run out. I find it odd that there should be any stigma attached to the dismissal as you describe it. If Ashwin warned first and then subsequently appealed the batsman should be out. Perhaps if there was no initial warning, the umpire wanted all parties to consider the spirit of the game.