Cricket rulemakers need to change ‘Mankad’ law as latest incident ignites debate yet again

By Paul Suttor / Expert

The problem with the “Mankad” in cricket is not its use but the grey area around whether it should be done because it is not considered in the spirit of the game.

It’s in the laws of the game as a legal tactic, therefore there should not be an uproar every time someone does it.

Batters are breaking the laws of the game when they leave the non-striker’s end before the ball is bowled so why should they be allowed an unfair advantage?

Debate has lit up in Australian cricket circles after vision of Kingston Hawthorn bowler Sen Sathyajith performing the tactic went viral over the weekend.

He did it twice while running into bowl in the final overs of a second XI game against Casey-South Melbourne.

With the Hawks defending 203 on Saturday afternoon, the opening bowler first ran out batter Isaiah Jassal at the non-striker’s end to leave the Swans 8-181, before repeating the dose just a few overs later for the final wicket of the match, securing a tense 13-run win.

Cricket’s lawmakers, the MCC, as it does on many matters, sat on its hands when this debate flared for decades and made an attempt in 2017 to clarify the rule.

Law 41.16 regarding a non-striker leaving their ground early was amended to say:

“If the non-striker is out of their ground from the moment the ball comes into play to the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the bowler is permitted to attempt to run them out. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one in 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 as possible.”

But there’s still the problem that traditionalists say the batter should be given a warning before the supposedly dastardly deed is done.

After Ravichandran Ashwin controversially dismissed Jos Buttler at the non-striker’s end in this fashion in an IPL game in 2019, the hysteria around the law prompted the MCC to issue a statement “To clarify, it has never been in the laws that a warning should be given to the non-striker and nor is it against the spirit of cricket to run out a non-striker who is seeking to gain an advantage by leaving his/her ground early.”

Last weekend’s incident shows there is still widespread anger towards the use of the “Mankad”.

Ask any bowler at all levels and they will tell you batters get all the advantages when it comes to cricket – the old “they get the benefit of the doubt” principle.

Why should they be allowed to leave their crease early when a bowler is pinged a penalty run and has to bowl a delivery again if their front foot is a fraction over the line, in some forms of the game also conceding a free hit.

The MCC should empower umpires to signal one run short any time they think a non-striker has left early, negating the advantage they have unfairly obtained.

If an illegally gained single suddenly became nothing or a four was brought back to a three, a six becomes a five, that would quickly put an end to batters jumping the gun.

The Victorian second grade incident divided opinion in the social media sphere – again, nothing new – when local reporter Paul Amy revealed the story on Twitter.

Among the responders was former Victorian first-class cricketer and current St Kilda captain Adam Crosthwaite, who replied: “This is horrible. Cannot believe the people in this post praising the bowler. Are you kidding?”

However, many of the other replies supported the bowler, with suggestions batters Jassal and Sachin Halangode were themselves cheating by backing up too early.

The Herald Sun reports that Premier Cricket manager Liam Murphy is investigating the incident. “That’s [further reports from the match] something that will be determined in the next 24 hours or so.”

Nothing should happen. Why should it? If the laws of the sport state in black and white that it’s permissible, then there’s nothing to see here, move along.

And the name Mankad should go the way of “the Chinaman” for left-arm wrist-spinners into the dustbin of cricket’s lexicon.

Generations of players have used the term, mostly in a derogatory way, without even knowing its origin.

Vinoo Mankad was a trail-blazing Indian cricketer when the team and the country encountered many challenges, a lot of them based around racial snobbery from other Test-playing nations.

A fine all-rounder, he was the fine all-rounder who averaged 31.47 with the bat in making 2109 runs in 44 Tests, the best of his five centuries a record-breaking 231 at Chennai against New Zealand. With the ball, he took 162 wickets with his left-arm finger-spinners at 32.32, including 8-52 against Pakistan in Delhi and 8-55 against England at Chennai.

He ran out Australian opener Bill Brown during the second Test of India’s tour of Australia in 1947-48 at the SCG. You would think the local press would be outraged by the tactic but Brown was the one who was roundly criticised for leaving his ground early.

Mankad had done it to Brown prior to the Test in a warm-up game and on that occasion, he had warned the batter before employing the divisive tactic.

In a book released last year by Indian cricket writer Gulu Ezekiel entitled “Myth-Busting: Indian cricket behind the headlines”, he presented the case put forward by The Cricketer magazine at the time which said the SCG crowd at the tour match “realized the fairness of the bowler’s action and cheered him”.

Former Test batter Arthur Mailey, a long-time cricket correspondent in his retirement, described Mankad as “over-generous not having run him out the first time” before dismissing Brown.

As for Brown, he reportedly was remorseful for his actions in the wake of the incident and apologised to Mankad during a post-match drink.

In an interview with Wisden in 2004, Brown – who died in 2008, aged 95 – said Mankad had given him a lesson.

“Vinoo Mankad taught me to smarten myself up with the two run-outs in 1947-48. Later I called him to say there were no hard feelings.”

Brown was run out for 99 later in the summer in the traditional manner when a return to the keeper found him short of his ground.

And as fate would have it, the fielder on this occasion was none other than Mankad.

“As I walked off I looked to see who threw it – my old mate Vinoo.”

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

The Crowd Says:

2022-02-23T11:27:54+00:00

Jeff

Roar Rookie


I stand by my comments history re debating. Doesn't preclude me from calling out personal attacks that don't debate, when they arise. I'd prefer to see engaged discussions on topics and issues.

2022-02-23T03:25:42+00:00

Golden Army

Guest


That comment would have more merit if the following two points were acknowledged 1. Mankading is clear in the laws. You seem to be unaware of that. The laws state a batsman needs to be in his crease when the ball is being bowled. 2. It's legal, but you simply don't like the practice. That's your choice, but you then can't launch a philippic because you don't like it. You need to explain why it's perfectly fine for a batsman to walk down the crease at the time of delivery but not ok for the bowler to dismiss him for doing so?

2022-02-23T03:23:12+00:00

Golden Army

Guest


That's society, mate. Anything is legal unless it's explicitly stated otherwise.

2022-02-22T07:48:31+00:00

JGK

Roar Guru


It could be a massive call for the umpire because it's not as simple as being out of your crease when the bails are dislodged. You have to have been out of your crease at the time the bowl would have normally been delivered. So there is a fair bit of guess work in that and clearly you could make a technically correct not out decision even if the runner is well out of their crease. And I wonder how much of the benefit of the doubt would go with the batsman.

2022-02-21T23:34:23+00:00

BillyW

Roar Rookie


Not only is it written about in the laws it is quoted in the article! It compares somewhat to a pitcher picking off a runner in baseball thats trying to gain an advantage in meterage......only the pitcher is a celebrated legend and a bowler is somehow dividing opinion.....

2022-02-21T23:09:36+00:00

Gray-Hand

Roar Rookie


One of my biggest regrets from my playing days is not having mankaded more slimy little run-thieves. I wish there were more mankad sun international cricket. I would be perfectly happy to see the deciding test of an Ashes series win with a mankad.

2022-02-21T22:46:42+00:00

andyfnq

Roar Rookie


Got it in one matey :thumbup:

2022-02-21T22:45:10+00:00

andyfnq

Roar Rookie


If you don't like the Mankad then don't leave your ground early, easy fixed. If you're out of your crease you are fair game, no warning required. Or should batsmen warn the bowler if they want to step out of the crease early or do a switch hit?

2022-02-21T22:44:31+00:00

Chum

Roar Rookie


Classic case of playing the man right there mate. Not a word on what I raised as a solution. I’m with loom, stop pearl clutching and debate

2022-02-21T22:10:28+00:00

Loomy

Guest


Oh no, a mean comment on the internetz.

2022-02-21T14:20:42+00:00

Jeff

Roar Rookie


Well, I mean, seriously. Let's disagree on perspectives if needs be - goodness knows you and I have repeatedly disagreed on some stuff - but school-yard name calling is just, lame.

2022-02-21T14:04:59+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


Chum (is) Clean bowled!!! Jeff: (politely) “The pavilion’s that way” > ……

2022-02-21T12:10:31+00:00

Jeff

Roar Rookie


Do you have an intention to be a regular commentator on this site? If so, I hope you can find a way to do so engagingly, without cheap "weak" personal put downs. I doubt you would respond in such a way face-to-face with someone you were discussing a topic with; being a keyboard warrior doesn't make you "the man". Try debating and not sledging.

2022-02-21T12:03:51+00:00

Jeff

Roar Rookie


Come on. Engage more sensibly. Or maturely.

2022-02-21T12:00:38+00:00

Jeff

Roar Rookie


So a free-for-all unless EVERY conceivable action/conduct is regulated by a written law?

2022-02-21T11:58:34+00:00

Jeff

Roar Rookie


"It’s in the laws of the game as a legal tactic, therefore there should not be an uproar every time someone does it" No, it's not "IN" the laws of the game. It simply isn't dealt with specifically within the laws of the game. Big big difference. As a society, we have a mountain's worth of social behaviours that are not considered acceptable, that don't pass "the pub test" in terms of acceptable/normal social behaviour. But just because we don't have "laws" that deal with these things, doesn't make them acceptable or tolerable to the broader population. What is it with this perspective of being "mandated via regulation" as to how to engage in society in an appropriate manner?

2022-02-21T09:13:06+00:00

Choppy Zezers

Roar Rookie


Why have a dismissal called Mankad if you can't go around Mankadding everyone (and is it one p or two?) If we didn't have it, the great name Mankad would be lost to the game. We have Mankad. We want Mankad. We need Mankad. I think the only change is referring to the dismissal by the name he went by, Vinoo or even better his given names Mulvantrai, Mulvantrai Himmatlal. That'd be a great addition to the game. "Clever Vinoo that one" "Yes! Gone! What a time for the bowler to get a Mulvantrai Himmatlal!"

2022-02-21T09:10:51+00:00

CricDude

Guest


Problem is how do we define 'blatantly'! In the highest level, it's a game of small margins. Even half a step ahead might be a difference between a quick single and a run-out. The rule is there for a reason. It's better batters stay careful.

2022-02-21T08:45:25+00:00

Sylvester

Guest


Next we'll be giving a warning for LBW! "Mate, you'd better use your bat next time..."

2022-02-21T07:00:56+00:00

DaveJ

Roar Rookie


“It’s in the laws so therefore it’s ok” is not necessarily true. But the idea of losing a run if leaving early is a good idea. The Mankad should be reserved for blatantly trying to take advantage and after a warning. A lot of the time a batsman who wanders out stops to see where the ball goes so doesn’t get much advantage anyway. And we don’t want bowlers balking fielders in order to Mankad – that’s just a stupid way to decide wickets, if there’s no warning.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar