The recent mankad incident at the 2016 Under-19 Cricket World Cup in Bangladesh has caused great debate about whether mankading is within the spirit of the game, and whether it should be allowed in the game.
Former West Indian fast bowler and now commentator Ian Bishop initially reacted from inside the commentary box on-air moments after the incident with a softly-spoken “Oh, no!”.
More cricket:
» There’s method in the selection madness
» Aussie rookies face litmus Tests in New Zealand
» Have the Australian selectors at last got it right for the T20 World Cup?
» Nevill the shock inclusion as Australia announce World T20 squad
» The Liebke Ratings: New Zealand vs Australia third ODI
» Watch: New Zealand retain Chappell-Hadlee Trophy amid controversy
» Scorecard: New Zealand vs Australia third ODI
Current England limited-overs captain Eoin Morgan tweeted in response to the incident.
Respected Indian cricket commentator and journalist Harsha Bhogle also made an interesting comment on Twitter.
The incident happened in the Group C match between the West Indies and Zimbabwe on February 2 at the Zahur Ahmed Chowdhury Stadium in Chittagong, in what was a must-win match for both teams to qualify for the quarter-finals of the World Cup.
With six balls left, and Zimbabwe needing three runs for victory, despite being nine wickets down, the unthinkable happened.
West Indian fast bowler Keemo Paul ran in to deliver the first ball of the final over, but decided not to deliver the ball in his normal delivery stride and ran out the non-striking batsman Richard Ngarava.
After this, the two on-field umpires, Ahsan Raza of Pakistan and Phil Jones of New Zealand, came together to discuss the matter and decided to refer the incident upstairs to the third umpire Tim Robinson of England.
The replays showed Ngarava’s bat was on the line, dragging it away from his crease, as Paul, with the ball in his right hand, whipped the bails off.
Third umpire Robinson then officially gave Ngarava out by run-out, ruling him short of his ground, meaning that the West Indies won the match by two runs, and were through to the quarter-finals.
It also meant that Ngarava had been effectively mankaded.
So, how did the mankad and the practice of mankading come about?
The dismissal known as the mankad is named after former Indian Test cricketer Mulvantrai ‘Vinoo’ Mankad.
Mankad, who played for India between 1946 and 1959 as an accomplished all-rounder, made headlines in cricketing circles in December 1947 after running out Australian opening batsman Bill Brown at the Sydney Cricket Ground in the second Test match of a series.
In only the fifth Test match of his career, Mankad ran out Brown in Australia’s first innings while he was in the act of delivering the ball, whipping off the bails at the non-strikers end. Brown was well short of his ground, attempting to gain a head start for a potential quick single.
This was the second time that this had happened between Mankad and Brown, after the Indian ran out the Australian a month earlier in a tour match.
The second incident caused a huge uproar, with the local Australian media at the time accusing Mankad of showing unsportsmanlike behaviour.
However, one person that was in support of Mankad’s actions was the then-Australian captain Sir Donald Bradman.
Writing in his autobiography, Bradman strongly defended the behaviour and actions of Mankad.
“For the life of me, I can’t understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship,” Bradman said.
“The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the nonstriker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered.
“If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out?
“By backing up too far or too early, the nonstriker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage.”
So, what is the law in regards to mankading, and being mankaded?
The rule regarding Vinoo Mankad’s run-out of Bill Brown would be deemed illegal in the game of cricket today and there is no wording of mankad, mankading, or being mankaded under any playing condition. Yet there is a key law in regards to this, including in the U19 Cricket World Cup 2016 – Playing Conditions.
Under “Law 42.15 – Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery”, it states that: “Law 42.15 shall be replaced by the following: The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, to deliberately attempt to run out the non-striker.
“Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal dead ball as soon possible.”
So technically, the right decision in regards to Zimbabwean batsman Richard Ngarava was made.
However, is this acceptable within the spirit of the game?
A few days ago, I chatted online with a friend, Neil, who played cricket with my brother when they were younger.
Neil recently completed a Certificate in Cricket Umpiring with the NSW Cricket Umpires and Scorers Association, where they discussed and reviewed varying aspects of the game.
When I asked Neil about this recent incident, and whether it was acceptable within the spirit of cricket, he explained the situation to me very simply.
“In context of the laws of the game, the correct decision was given,” he explained.
“As for the spirit of the game, it gets just a little bit tricky.
“Cricket tends to be a batsman’s game these days and people scrutinising the bowler for what he did backs this up.
“The batsman left his crease early to gain an advantage when running between the wickets. The bowler was aware of this and ran him out.
“In my opinion, no one is in breach of the spirit of the game. Those who think one side or the other is in breach are the ones who are bringing the game into disrepute.”
So, summarising the words that are coming from a fully qualified cricket umpire, the actions of Keemo Paul were not only legal but his actions were perfectly fine in regards to the spirit of cricket.
So, no questions asked, right?
Paul D
Roar Guru
No, the ball is live once the bowler commences his run up.
Warnie's Love Child
Guest
Sorry I'm not au fait with the rules of cricket, so I'm a bit confused. I thought a player could only be given out when the ball is "live". Doesn't the ball only become " live" after it leaves the bowler's hand ? So, as the bowler never released the ball, the ball was never in play and therefore the batsman should have been given not out and the ball declared " dead ".
Cadfael
Roar Guru
What penalty then when the batsman takes off early and isn't Mankaded or is it only bowlers to be penalised.
Chris Love
Guest
I'm all for the mankad! But I do like the idea of penalising the bowler if he attempts it unsuccessfully more than twice. While we already have slow over rate rules that could come into effect if this turned into a farce, the team batting recieve no benefit from these rules in a knock out comp like a World Cup so I would be happy for a 5 run penalty or a free hit no ball.
Paul D
Roar Guru
He never intended to bowl, full stop. He was always going to try a mankad that delivery, guarantee it. It wasn't a spur of the moment decision.
Andy
Guest
I use cheating in its nicest way, its as much cheating as the mankad is not within the spirit of the game. The batsman leaving the crease is gaining an advantage that they shouldnt.
Andy
Guest
Its cheating because the batsman is trying to steal inches, he isnt allowed to be out of his ground when the bowler bowls or he is run out.
Dracula
Guest
The other issue is that he executed the mankad run-out in an "underarm" fashion, which proves that he intended to bowl underarm.
Chris Vincent
Roar Pro
"It is a disgrace to dismiss the non-striker when he is not actually taking part in the primary contest between bat and ball." If so then it should be in the rules. End of argument.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I guess I’m approaching this with my umpiring hat on – I agree that the last thing we want in cricket is it to turn into a game of cat and mouse where you have endless attempts at mankads and “false starts” slowing the game down. Not a great look. However you have to have black and white rules around this - The batsman either needs to be judged in, or out, and you certainly can’t drag intent into it. Personally I don’t differentiate between a spur of the moment mankad attempt, or a premeditated mankad attempt, however I think there should be a maximum of one or two unsuccessful mankad per innings, then any subsequent unsuccessful attempts are penalised 5 runs (akin to timewasting, basically). Would stop speculative mankads by and large – and at worse, would be similar to the review towards the end of the game (use it or lose it!) Indoor cricket allows for 2 unsuccessful attempts per over, any other attempts are no-balls, however the nature of indoor cricket with the ball always being “live” contributes a lot to that. So it’s not that dissimilar to impose a similar regime in outdoor cricket, however I believe there should be less unsuccessful attempts – obviously. I just look at other rules in the game – I mean, take the front foot no-ball rule. The bowler never intends to overstep (unless his name was Mohammad Aamir), and even if he’s a millimetre over the line – too bad, no ball, get back to your mark. I don’t see why batsmen should get treated any different with this rule, I really do not. Start from further back in the crease, like the bowlers are always told! If you want to be sprinting as the bowler lets it go, there’s nothing stopping a batsman starting from 5 metres back and approaching the crease as the bowler lets it go.
JGK
Roar Guru
I generally agree with you about mankads but the one we are talking about is different.
Paul D
Roar Guru
And? A bowler sends down a wide half tracker that the batsman chops onto his stumps. Never his intent either, but he'll take it. The fact is there is no logical argument against mankads, because there isn't one. The only argument is an appeal to this mythical "spirit" of cricket or some prejudicial personal preference, the "I don't like it" argument.
JGK
Roar Guru
Zampa didn't intend to run Neville out.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Oh, now it’s a “disgrace”. And apparently only dismissals that require skill should be counted. What about Adam Zampa’s run out of Phil Neville during the BBL? Not much skill involved in that one. Didn’t see anyone complaining though. You spirit of cricket types are hilarious. Even if the bowler had no intention of delivering the ball, if the batsman was paying attention and not just mindlessly wandering down the wicket, he wouldn’t have been out. You can’t have rules based on a Dennis Denuto style “vibe” interpretation. It’s either not out, or out.
MikeTV
Guest
“The batsman left his crease early to gain an advantage when running between the wickets. The bowler was aware of this and ran him out." Except that isn't what actually happened. It was a premeditated mankad and it was a huge gamble for the bowler. If the batsman had been 1cm back in the crease then the bowler's intentions would have been exposed. Luckily for the bowler the gamble paid off. Bowlers should always try to dismiss the batsman onstrike. If that batsman is caught out of his crease (without attempting a run) then he can be "stumped" , and this requires skillful bowling, skillful wicket keeping and a legal delivery (not a no-ball). It is a disgrace to dismiss the non-striker when he is not actually taking part in the primary contest between bat and ball. Sure, if the non-striker is "attempting a run" then bowlers should run him out at the non-strikers end - ie mankad him. But he should not be "stumped" at the non-strikers end. A simple solution would be to only allow a mankad runout if the bowler has executed a proper delivery stride. This would probably require some video review. The U'19s West Indian bowler simply ran straight at the stumps and had no intention of delivering that ball.
Jameswm
Guest
I agree with this. When I played, I always watched the ball come out of the bowler's hand before leaving my crease. No way I was going to give anyone the chance to get me out. Having said that, not many pros do this.
Jameswm
Guest
How is that cheating? If a batsman overbalances facing a spinner and is stumped, is that cheating? Of course not. If a batsman misses a ball and is bowled, is that cheating? No. It's out, not cheating. There's an obvious difference between the two.
Mango Jack
Guest
Except I don't think it's cheating in most cases. Every non-striker leaves his crease before the ball leaves the bowler's hand - it's pretty much what we are all taught to do. Call it taking a risk, if you like, but it's not cheating. For a bowler to mankad, he must intend to not deliver the ball but appear to do so, so in that sense he is deceiving the batsman. If a bowler believes the batsman is pushing the boundary on this, I think a warning is fair enough, and if the batsman persists then he will pay the price.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I reckon it was definitely a planned move. The bowler would have seen him leaving his ground close to him delivering the ball, and thought it was worth a try. Good match awareness from the bowler for thinking of it, personally.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Cheating is most definitely the wrong word to use. This sort of dismissal is not much different to a player who overbalances after playing and missing, and the keeper whips the bails off after his foot is momentarily dragged out of his crease. It’s not cheating, it’s more lack of awareness – certainly so in the instance in the U19’s game. But there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be just treated the same as any other mode of dismissal. No-one ever wants to recall a batsman for handling the ball, even if done by accident or reflex, for example. It’s very peculiar how people continue to object to this mode of dismissal, certainly an emotive objection rather than one based on logic.