WATCH: Controversial Mankad dismissal wins game for Windies

It'd be a pretty random thing to do if they hadn't noticed the batsman doing it before then, surely? I mean, it's a bit of an odd decision to just run in and Mankad someone on the off-chance they might be out of their crease.

I think that getting a head start while the bowler is in his final strides (which can be very off putting) is not in the spirit of the game. Don't want to get run out then don't leave your crease!!!!!!! Now if he had tried it while two batsman were talking in the middle between balls then that's not in the spirit of the game. I have no issue with the Mankad in this manner what so ever. Every bowler should be trying it. Keep the bastards honest.

My issue with it is that the bowler's only intention was to mankad, he never intended to bowl the ball, and that is by far against the spirit of the game. The mankad basically decided the game and that is pretty disappointing.

It's about time all bowlers started practicing it. For every mankad dismissal there are dozens if not hundreds of batsman saved by getting out to a no ball when the front foot was mere millimetres over the line. Bats have far too much advantage these days. Bowlers have nothing to match the improvements in batting. No way should bowlers allows batsmen to get a head start.

For my entire life, I've been taught that Mankad is against the spirit of the game, unless the opposition batsman has been previously warned. Every player that I know of is taught the same thing, to this day. Mankad is right up there with specious handle-ball appeals. There are good reasons why neither are removed as methods of dismissing batsmen. As mentioned above, if you completely remove the possibility of a Mankad, there's nothing to stop a runner from sneaking halfway down the pitch each ball. Similarly, remove handle-ball and a batsman can swat away a ball which has ballooned up and is about to crash down onto his stumps. The spirit in which a game is played is as important as the result. Getting the win by devious or unsavoury means is OK with sociopaths, but not with the majority of fair-minded players. Unless something about a warning is not being reported here, what the Windies players did is wrong, and they deserve to be castigated for it,

Schoolboy stuff was always told to have the bat behind the crease.

I thought the bowler had to be in the act of bowling which he wasn't. If he is in the delivery stride ok but (the vid doesn't show here) When does the ball become in play? It's ok if it's a legit delivery.

Cricket is a professional sport, a game with rules. Outrage at perceptions of gentlemanly "spirit" are OK in the back yard but ridiculous in meaningful competition. Play by the rules and accept the adjudicator's decisions. That is the "spirit" in which the game should be played. Arguing with officials is not in the spirit of any game but the Mankad is a necessary part of cricket. I would feel fine winning a game under these circumstances, why not? I don't think it was necessary to even modify the Mankad rules, but they were so I accept it. Did the bowler warn the batsman before the dismissal. Does the law require the bowler to warn the batsman before a Mankad attempt?

It's out, it's within the rules, there is nothing wrong with it.

Isnt the mankad just the bowlers version of switch hitting?

What's the fuss, someone got out.

"fieldsman intend to get a batsman out in all number of ways without intending to bowl a ball. So can a bowler" Come on Wally, that's an absurd comparison. A bowler bowls, a fielder doesn't (not that over anyway). How can you compare them? I'm not worried about warnings. I'm saying this is a case where a bowler decided to mankad the batsman, and went through the motions of doing it, when the batsman was IN.

I wonder if we will be talking about this in 35 years time?

I'm with you Atawhai. If it is in the laws how can it be a controversy? To take each of Jameswm points in turn (a) he had no part of his bat grounded over the popping crease. Mms or metres matters not. Neither does his intention. He was either out of his ground or he wasn't. (b) lbw, bowled, obstructing the field etc can decide a match with no controversy. Why can't a Mankad? (c) fieldsman intend to get a batsman out in all number of ways without intending to bowl a ball. So can a bowler. The only thing about this incident is it is unusual If a batsman wants to ensure he is not bowled he should put bat to ball. If he does not want to get run out he should make his ground. Its as simple as that. As for those who maintain there should be a warning, I say 2 things. Firstly the law does not provide for it. End of story. But if you want to take it further, why should there be a warning? Do we say, "Hey mate, your technique is a bit suss outside off. Give those cross bat shots a miss or I'll end up with a catch behind."? Of course not. The moral to the story is cricket is a competition. Abide by its laws and there is no controversy.

I agree with you Atawhai ...should batsman never fear this happening what is to stop them being a meter down the pitch at delivery ? That is happening now in some forms . The only thing with this one is it is just mm's in it ! But no problem for mine ...mm's decide many other dismissals in the game ...I just don't get the fuss ? Batsman stay in your crease !!! ...like bowlers mustn't be 1 mm over the line when bowling ...its pretty simple really ..if people judge it not within the spirit of cricket then change the law !

It wasn't game awareness at all. When the bowler decided to mankad the batsman, and moved his arm there, the batsman was IN HIS GROUND. The bat drifted the 1-2mm out just as the ball hit the stumps. The bowler had no intention of bowling it. There was no delivery stride. he just ran in and went for the mankad. Maybe others had been backing up out of their ground - I don't know.

It's relevant as to why the dismissal is controversial, which is what I was commenting on. It is obviously not relevant as to why it was out. Would you be comfortable with winning a game like that?

Whether it's considered fair play is completely contrary to whether it is in the rules of the game. If it's legal then I have to say, it was quite an astute bit of game awareness on behalf of the bowler or whoever suggested it. If it's such a hated rule the simple answer is 'get rid of it'. Until then, the Windies out thiught their opponent. NB: I should make it clear that I'm not a fan of the tactic or think it's sporting in the spirit of the game just that it exists as an option and identifying the opportunity was quite astute.

Jameswm, the questions for me are whether the batsman was out of his ground, and whether the bowler did anything contrary to the laws of the game. If the answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second question is no, then the batsman was legitimately out. The state of the match at the time of the incident is not relevant. Unless we're talking about the "spirit of cricket", whatever that might be.

Yeah i dont understand how is controversial either, why are we not blaming the batsman for being an idiot and leaving his ground before the ball has been delivered? Stay in your crease, its one of the first rules of cricket. The batsman was trying to steal 1 mm, its not much obviously but it is still him cheating and he got caught out.