Without the Mankad there would be anarchy

By Bill Peters / Roar Guru

The Mankad is back in the news thanks to the pairing of Ricky Ponting and Ravi Ashwin at the Delhi Capitals in this season’s Indian Premier League. 

And although its use during the course of a match is a controversial and ultimately opinion-dividing event, the lack of any pertinent suggestions on how to improve that part of the game is just as frustrating as the action itself.

In last season’s Indian Premier League, Ravi Ashwin Mankaded Jos Buttler in an incident that divided opinion throughout the cricket world. And that’s fair enough, if what was being discussed was the manner that Ashwin went about the dismissal rather than the Mankad itself.

In that incident, the footage suggests that Buttler was not looking to take advantage of gaining a large amount of ground in backing up, and that all he is guilty of is not watching the bowler deliver the ball. Further to this, Ashwin stops in his run up, and seems to be waiting for Buttler to leave his ground enough so that he can whip the bails off.

While this action may be seen to be against the spirit of the law as it is written, the problem still lies with the fact that at no stage was Buttler watching the bowler coming in to bowl and deliver the ball.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

The rule itself suggests that the batsman is responsible for staying within the boundaries of the crease until such time as the ball has been delivered by the bowler. If the batsman does not, then he can be run out. That is pretty black and white.

Over time it has been an unwritten rule that the bowler will stop and warn the batsman that he is contravening this law, before he makes any attempt to actually go through with performing a run out. This is not in the laws of the game, but is observed as being correct cricket etiquette.

Carrying on from that, there is a wide community who believe Mankading should not exist in the game. They believe that while it isn’t cheating, it is against what some refer to as the spirit of cricket.

This season, Ravi Ashwin is playing for the Delhi Capitals, the team that Ricky Ponting is coaching. Ponting was quoted last week as saying he does not like the Mankad, and that he believes it is not within the spirit of the game or the way he wants his team to play. Reports suggest a preliminary talk has already occurred between the two.

(Photo by Ryan Pierse – CA/Cricket Australia/Getty Images)

While I don’t doubt that when it comes to cricket knowledge and experience I stand very much on the wrong side of that compared to Ricky Ponting, I am always left ambivalent when an ex-player drags out the spirit of the game reference.

While I am not against what the spirit of cricket attempts to stand for, the fact that everyone has a different view on how it is interpreted always makes me suspicious.

Pre-Newlands 2018, Australia felt as though they played within the spirit of the game when they sledged mercilessly and with venom and spite on the field, as long as they left it on the field. The fallout proved that to be incorrect given the lack of sympathy for the team and the players involved, such had their lack of likeability become. To me, the spirit of cricket has too many angles to be used as a fair indicator.

Ponting also suggested that other means could be used to stop batsmen encroaching out of their ground in backing up from the bowler’s end. One suggestion was that if the bowler stopped and the batsman was out of their ground that they could be penalised runs instead, and that if this happened at the start of the tournament it would stop it occurring from that point on.

Now maybe it’s just me, but if someone being actually Mankaded does not stop batsmen from leaving their ground early – and it didn’t following the Jos Buttler wicket in the last IPL – then why will penalising them runs do it? That seems just as unlikely to halt the process.

And further to that, if that particular rule was instituted, how often will a bowler stop in his run up before commentators and other teams are complaining that it is wasting too much time in an effort to get some penalty runs from the opposition?

Imagine the last over of a close match. The batting team needs six runs to win, and the bowler stops on each of the first three times he goes to deliver the first ball of the final over in an attempt to try and gain penalty runs. Imagine the commotion. Then the umpires tell the bowler to bowl the next ball or he will be warned off. So then knowing that he has to bowl the next ball, the batsman ends up being two metres down the wicket.

No doubt Ponting when questioned over Ashwin being in his team was in fact just iterating that he does not like the Mankad and he will be informing his players that they are not to use it. But if the other teams know that, then what is to stop them from taking every advantage when backing up against the Delhi Capitals? Why bother staying in your crease if you know that their coach has more or less banned his team from using that dismissal?

Opinion on Mankading usually splits at about 50-50, with one side not happy with how it looks when it occurs. But if the Mankad rule does not exist, what is to stop any non-striker from standing metres out of their ground before the ball is delivered? Simply demand that the batsman be aware it is their responsibility to be watching the bowler deliver the ball before leaving their ground.

Problem solved. Sorry Ricky.

The Crowd Says:

2020-09-02T02:47:26+00:00

Paul

Roar Guru


Great comment. I've never told the umpire their job, but have let my skipper know so he could have a quiet word. I remember one bloke who played with us complaining when he had his middle stump removed, that the bowler had delivered a no-ball. The opposition captain heard that and was all set to fire up about it,till he saw we were all laughing at him. Still trying to work out how he could spot a no-ball from the other end. Maybe that's why he was cleaned up!

2020-09-02T02:02:35+00:00

DJM

Roar Rookie


As an umpire I have often enough had Non striking batsmen saying to me, that was a no ball ump. My usual response, learned from one of my fellow umpires was ‘well if you want to umpire, I wouldn’t mind having a bat’.

2020-08-29T12:27:02+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


Also should read howlers not bowlers. Not a good day at the office for my proof reading.

2020-08-29T12:25:41+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


Wrongly given out on 55 that should have read. Time window for editing the typo elapsed.

2020-08-29T10:34:59+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


Not a huge deal but it was actually only 10 runs later. He was wrongly given not out on 45 then wrongly given not out on 55. And yeah it was a case of selective memory. Also, as an aside, that as well as Laxman wrong given not out early when India batting and then making a century just makes me yawn every time Indian fans resume moaning about the bowlers that went Australia's way that test.

2020-08-29T10:26:40+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


So it's only 8 minutes in international cricket? I didn't know that but I'll take your word for it. I was only going on the playing conditions for the comp I umpire in which is quite a few levels below the international scene.

2020-08-29T07:59:35+00:00

Nick

Roar Guru


Sure...part of the spirit of cricket is to behave like a gentlemen on the park. A few examples: His mouth off at the English change room when run out by a legitimate sub. Him not being dismissed caught behind at the SCG in 2008, then getting a bad call 30 runs later and choosing to focus all his criticism at the howler that got him dismissed, not the one that didn't. His sustained and ugly abuse of Aleem Dar at Melbourne in 2010. Interestingly enough he never captained again after that, so it was a pretty ugly way to end his captaincy. He was a brilliant batsman with a foul temper and an inherent belief different rules applied to his team. Exceptionalism is such a pathetic trait in an individual.

2020-08-29T04:04:10+00:00

badmanners

Roar Rookie


You are correct in saying anyone can be used as a sub fielder but the time limit to remain off the field is 8 minutes before you are prevented from bowling/batting immediately on return to the field of play. Furthermore, this is lifted from wikipedia "In 2008 the International Cricket Council tightened the regulations on the use of substitutions, saying "Substitute fielders shall only be permitted in cases of injury, illness or other wholly acceptable reasons...and should not include what is commonly referred to as a 'comfort break'"

2020-08-29T01:21:11+00:00

Insult_2_Injury

Roar Rookie


Hence 99% of designated ball tamperers being batsmen.

2020-08-29T01:17:08+00:00

Insult_2_Injury

Roar Rookie


Political behaviour has no semblance of etiquette or spirit and should never be held up as a role model in any society. It is an industry of expediency and hypocrisy.

2020-08-29T01:05:40+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


It's always been fine to use whoever as a sub fielder. Restrictions apply for both bowlers and batsmen who spend more than 15 minutes off the field except for obvious injuries.

2020-08-29T00:27:30+00:00

JGK

Roar Guru


Maybe you could list them for us.

2020-08-28T23:57:54+00:00

badmanners

Roar Rookie


That wasn't the case at the time of the 2005 ashes, it only became commonplace afterwards and IIRC Cricket Aus asked for clarification of the rule from the ICC. England had been giving there bowlers a rest off the field after spells and using specialist fieldsmen, which isn't quite kosher, in this instance someone who hadn't even played first class cricket that season. I think Ponting had every right to feel aggrieved, even make inquiries after play, but shouldn't have lost his rag so spectacularly. Obviously a sign he was feeling the pressure, made for great drama though!

2020-08-28T22:45:02+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


Doesn’t have to be the listed 12th man. Often in tests in Australia once the 12th man is decided, he will be released to go and play a shield game. If Bourke was playing Walgett in a registered competition, Walgett could have Ricky Ponting substitute field for them if he was passing by – he just wouldn’t be able to bat, bowl or wicket keep.

2020-08-28T20:06:58+00:00

badmanners

Roar Rookie


But, and my memory isn't great on this, Pratt wasn't the listed 12th man? It was certainly not the done thing at the time to allow the listed 12th man to go play for his county or state and then sub in an unknown gun fielder. Not sure overseas players should have to know the fielding form of every player in county cricket? I know it is a more commonplace occurrence now but it didn't happen in Aus at the time. It surprises me that we in Australia accepted the blatant ball tampering that occurred in that series with hardly any complaints, I feel England were a chance of beating us without it, of course we'll never know.

2020-08-28T18:17:54+00:00

Ben Pobjie

Expert


If there's no appeal, there's no run out.

2020-08-28T17:01:22+00:00

Pope Paul VII

Roar Rookie


He won't need to instruct his players Benny because the batsman will be out.

2020-08-28T16:57:53+00:00

Pope Paul VII

Roar Rookie


Ashwin absolutely faked his delivery. Mankad didn't because Brownie was reputedly a yard out both times. The Ashwin diminishes the Mankad.

2020-08-28T11:10:14+00:00

badmanners

Roar Rookie


I really think that Buttler should have been given a second chance, after all he gives plenty of second chances to batsmen when he's keeping!

2020-08-28T09:27:15+00:00

Nick

Roar Guru


What's your point? You're not faking a delivery when you mankad someone. You are mankading them.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar