Every time a batsman nicks one to the wicketkeeper and isn’t given out, talk goes back to that age-old issue of walking. Or not.
Personally, I was always a non-walker as a batsman, so if a batsman doesn’t walk, I don’t complain.
The umpire’s there to do a job and he’s messed up. Not the batsman’s lookout.
As for the other side of the argument – not walking amounts to cheating – I take it on board, and don’t have much against it either. Unfortunately, the issue arises when there’s a team of walkers and a team which doesn’t have them – wouldn’t make for a fair result.
I bring this up as it has a relationship with the issue of Mankading.
The Under-19 World Cup, currently on in Bangladesh, saw the latest case of Mankading in ‘international’ cricket, but what made it trend on Twitter in some parts of the world was the situation in which it came up.
Zimbabwe were three runs away from sending the West Indies on their way home, but had six balls and, more vitally, just a wicket standing.
But it was West Indian speedster Keemo Paul who sent his side into the knock-out stage, by running Richard Ngarava out at the non-striker’s end before he had sent down the delivery.
Out, Mankaded.
A very upset Zimbabwean captain, Brandon Mavuta, refused to add fuel to the fire, saying, “We got so close, no comment about it. I don’t have anything to say right now. No comment.”
The West Indian captain Shimron Hetmyer said he had no problem with the incident, which was within the rules of play. When asked if it was within the spirit of the game, Hetmyer conceded that might not be the case.
Why isn’t it within the spirit of the game if it’s within the rules of the game?
Unlike the Bodyline or other such intimidatory tactics, it’s not causing any physical harm. And unlike that infamous underarm delivery, it’s not even like the ICC has moved to ban Mankading.
Quite the opposite in fact.
In 2011, the ICC decided to make Mankading easier for the bowlers by allowing them to remove the bails even after they got into their delivery stride, a huge change from the previous rule that had seen the apex cricketing board ban the law for a few years.
This change to reintroduce Mankading was a deliberate one. The ICC didn’t want the non-striker to gain an unfair advantage, and decided to bring back the old law.
Since then, there have been instances of bowlers running the non-strikers out, or at least attempting to do so, and each time it has led to furore.
In a tri-series match in Australia, India’s off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin gave Sri Lanka’s Lahiru Thirimanne a warning before running him out at the non-striker’s end. The umpires, despite knowing the change in the rules, asked the then-Indian captain Virender Sehwag if they wanted the appeal to stand, and Sehwag opted to withdraw it.
Interestingly, Thirimanne continued to take a start before the bowler’s delivery stride in that game even after that incident, and got away clean.
More recently, Sri Lankan bowler Sachithra Senanayake Mankaded Englishman Jos Buttler. The appeal stood, a disgruntled Buttler was sent back to the pavillion, and English captain Alastair Cook accused his counterpart Angelo Mathews of crossing the line.
Seriously, crossing the line for affecting a run-out well within the rules of the game? Not just in the rules of the game, but introduced specifically in the rules as recently as in 2011 to stave off unethical starts at the non-striker’s end?
Wasn’t Buttler crossing the line – both a literal and figurative one – by gaining an unfair advantage in taking a start?
If nicking and standing at the wicket, waiting for the umpire’s decision, borders on cheating, then taking a start at the non-striker’s end and creating a hue and cry over being Mankaded is cheating and hypocrisy rolled into one.
What’s cringeworthy is that the fielding team is made to look like they have committed a crime for following the letter of the law; why should they be questioned over it? Why is getting stumped or caught or lbw or run-out ethical, but getting Mankaded is not?
In short, it’s either legal or illegal. If Mankading is allowed as a part of the law, the fielding team are within their rights to affect the run-out, without even warning the non-striker.
And if it’s not, the ICC should scrap it.
Suneer Chowdhary
Roar Guru
I don't think there should be any such rule. There's no rule on the number of times a batsman can back away while facing up to a bowler. The umpire can warn him, can also penalise the team five runs if he thinks it's a case of deliberate time-wasting but there's no such rule that prevents him from backing away. Same with the bowler missing his run-up or Mankading. If the umpire thinks it's a deliberate ploy, by all means penalise the team those five runs, but introducing a 'one unsuccessful Mankad' rule is only taking away from one of the forms of dismissals. In any case, a fast bowler will end up tiring himself if he keeps running up and down just trying to 'Mankad'.
Suneer Chowdhary
Roar Guru
DB, In this particular instance, it's a marginal call. Assuming that age-old "line belongs to the umpire" rule holds true in this case as well, replays seem to suggest the bat was on the line when the stumps were first broken - at least that's what I think. Assuming this was a more typical run-out & not a Mankad, I would have been happy with the out decision. (I am happy with the Mankad too, just that I feel there could be a feeling around that because it's a Mankad, the batsman could be given bit of a benefit if the third umpire isn't too sure where the bat is).
TomC
Roar Guru
Well said, Suneer.
Jonathan
Guest
Work out the conundrum; It's unethical to Mankad, despite the fact the batsman is deliberately trying cheat to gain an advantage. It's acceptable for a batsman to cheat in this regard and in fact, will most likely be applauded for gaining a quick single.
DB
Guest
Thanks Paul, that makes sense as per the bat bounce rule that if you have not stepped across the crease and the bat bounces off the pitch at the point the bails are broken you're out. Just not convinced that the batsman does not have part of his bat behind the crease when the bails are broken, perhaps there is a better shot off it elsewhere which is more convincing.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I'd have one unsuccessful mankad per team (rather than on a per bowler basis) allowed per innings, after that any unsuccessful attempts are free hit no-balls. Similar to the DRS review in ODI cricket - you only get one for the whole team, don't waste it.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
Simple. Don't leave your crease until the ball is delivered. That's what I was taught
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
I'm all in favour of the Mankad however there should be some punishment for the bowler if he tried it and the batsman was in his ground. Imagine, it could happen all the time and kill the flow of the game. So I would say, award a free-hit no ball if the appeal was unsuccessful. If unsuccessful twice in an innings the bowler cannot bowl again the rest of the innings.
Paul D
Roar Guru
At the point the ball breaks the bails. If the bails are broken while the batsman is inside his crease, it doesn't matter if the ball is still touching the stumps after the bat slides out of the crease. The bowler would have to uproot a stump from the ground while the bat was still out of the crease to get a "second chance" to dismiss a batsman this way once the bails have been dislodged.
DB
Guest
A quick question to you cricket tragics about this type of dismissal. Unlike a conventional runout the batsman is moving away from his wicket so is the judgement made of whether he is in or out at the point the ball breaks the bails or when the ball last touches the stumps? Although close, It's not so clear cut he did not have part of his bat grounded behind the crease at the point the bails break. Benefit of the doubt and all that.
Paul D
Roar Guru
So start from further back behind the line - as Bush says, people have got not sympathy for bowlers, who for years have labored under this cruddy front foot no-ball rule, when it should have reverted to a back foot rule years ago. A millimeter over the line? Too bad, no ball. Get back to your mark. Why batters should get any sympathy for pushing the envelope as close as they can to the line is absolutely baffling. Just start a foot back behind the line and make sure you don't take off until the bowler lets it go.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I agree. A bowler should get a warning for their first wicket on a no ball, but the wicket should still stand. That would be fair for everyone. I mean it's not like the bowlers are trying to take liberties when they overstep the front foot.
The Bush
Roar Guru
So who sets the "acceptable distance" for when the batsman is actually trying to "steal a run"*? Can the bowler take a wicket on a no ball if it's only an inch or two? Would that be a problem for you?
JGK
Roar Guru
Totally agree.
JGK
Roar Guru
I think he was to some extent (you can see him trying to lean back) but his momentum dragged him out.
Sam
Guest
Just reading your comment "Arguably, the bowler yesterday never intended to bowl the ball (he was in the motion of taking the bails off while the runner was still in the crease)". Why wasnt the non striker watching,because i agree the bowler never looked like bowling it.
James Cattermole
Guest
I have no problem with a standard Mankad. The batsman trying to steal ground is putting himself at risk and I agree that the bowlers need more weapons in their armory nowadays. Look at the still picture of this particular instant. The batsman is in the crease as the bowlers starts swinging his arm towards the stumps. He ended up being run out by less than an inch which he had edged forward legitimately as the bowler was moving into his delivery stride. This was pathetic and was straight out forcing the situation to occur. It was not a situation where the batsman had been transgressing and was being taught a lesson. If this becomes the standard, bowlers can legitimately try this regularly throughout an innings hoping for the batsman to over balance or slightly misjudge it rather than being to stop batsmen genuinely trying to steal a metre as they sometimes do.
ozinsa
Guest
It seems I am swimming against the popular tide. I believe a warning should be required and that the young batsman was clearly not taking liberties, rather backing up using the bowler's location as his guide as to when it was legal to leave the crease. When the bowler only ever intended to take the bails off his timing was out and so was he. I sincerely hope the Windies side goes no further in this conpetition -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Pauly
Guest
I don't have a problem with it, like all of the other strange dismal rules in cricket. He shouldn't have been out of his crease before the ball was bowled. If these rules are bad then remove them from the laws of cricket. Cricket has too many laws that favour the batsmen. LBW has been the only law change to favour the bowler. I get sick of the so called "spirit of cricket" garbage, didn't they recently fine or suspend a Shield Player who gestured to the batsmen to the change room after taking a wicket?
Andy
Guest
Well isnt DRS disputing an umpires decision