I have watched the Charlie Dean Mankad dismissal several dozen times and believe both the Indian and English teams have correct and incorrect arguments regarding the ruling.
Let’s start with how both parties are right.
The Indians are right that Deepti Sharma’s act of running out Dean at the bowler’s end was completely within the rules. MCC Law 41.16 states a non-striker, such as Dean, can be run out if they are out of their ground at the instant the bowler “would normally have been expected to release the ball”.
It’s touch and go, but if Sharma had not slowed and then aborted her delivery action, I believe Dean’s bat would have left the protection beyond the bowling crease an instant before Sharma would have sent down her delivery. The fact third umpire’s call requires such an estimation is a subject to which I will return to.
But the English are also right to be aggrieved. As I’ve said, it’s a close call whether Dean would have been out of her ground when Sharma released the ball, had she proceeded to do so. It was fractions of second and mere inches of territory. Dean only proceeded further down the pitch because she hadn’t realised that the ball remained in Sharma’s right hand and that she was heading back to the stumps to run her out.
My problem with Mankading of that kind is that it involves an element of entrapment. There’s something sneaky about it.
Mankading of this nature is not the same as stumping a batsman who has come down the wicket and missed the ball and it’s different from running a batsman out as they charge towards the wicket which is broken. In both those cases, the batsman’s dismissal involves a legitimate contest between the skills of the batsman and the skills of the fielding side.
Instead, the kind of Mankading which saw Dean run out occurs, both literally and figuratively, behind the non-striker’s back. The non-striker, expecting the bowler to release the ball – as they have done every other ball – is fooled into putting themselves at risk of dismissal. Unless they have set off as the bowler gathers into their action, the non-striker is guilty of little more than a lack of imagination.
That said, both teams are also wrong.
(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
In my view, the Indians were right about the rules but were wrong to entrap the batsman into breaking them rather than wait for a more egregious episode of Dean leaving her ground early.
However, there is video evidence of Dean in the climatic overs leading up to her dismissal, leaving her ground well before the ball is released. This is presumably in an attempt to achieve a critical single whilst securing the strike with the last batter in. Strikingly, that video evidence also reveals a watchful Deepti Sharma, at mid-off, observing the advantage Dean was seeking to secure.
Looking at the circumstances as a whole, rather than adopting a myopic focus on the event which saw Dean dismissed, I can see the Indian point of view. If Dean was consistently leaving her ground before the ball was bowled then it’s hard to complain when she’s run out, my preference for a more egregious episode notwithstanding.
I promised to return to the judgment call a third umpire must make under the current laws.
CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial to watch international cricket on KAYO
Law 41.16 requires the batsman, at first instance, and the third umpire, in the event of an appeal, to judge the instant when the bowler would have released the ball had they done so. In other words, the critical moment is based on something which didn’t happen.
In my view, a better measure would be the moment the bowler’s front foot lands on the ground. That may be an instant before the bowler releases the ball, but it’s a split second at best and it at least involves an objective standard based on an event that actually occurred, even if the delivery action is not completed.
And if we’re going to amend the laws, let’s also enshrine the convention of giving the non-striker a warning, preferably by the bowler, to the batter, via the umpire.
JamesH
Roar Guru
...Although one thing I didn't consider with the final proposal is that batters could still cheat to get up the other end (e.g. where there is a tail ender on strike), even knowing they will be denied the run. Maybe where the umpire deems it to be a deliberate tactic they could require the batters to cross back or penalise them 5 runs. Dunno, needs a bit more thought.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
I agree with everything you said James H. The comments following my article have changed my thinking on this issue and your post provides a nice summary of what I now think.
DTM
Roar Rookie
It's not just being aware of the laws. Dean displayed poor technique by not watching the bowler's hand as the ball was being delivered. This was highlighted in a link to a twitter post which showed (as a non striker) Dean left her crease 70 times before the bowler entered her delivery stride and not once was she watching the bowler or the bowler's hand. It is poor technique on her part - either from poor coaching or her refusal to apply a basic skill.
JamesH
Roar Guru
The Mankad isn't controversial because it's pre-emtive or sneaky, it's controversial because we still have this bizarre situation where a large percentage of professional players refuse to recognise it as a fair way to dismiss batters, at least without a warning. That sets it apart from virtually all other dismissals. What really has to happen is for the taboo on the Mankad to disappear. I still maintain that the ICC could achieve this at any time, by simply publicly endorsing the Mankad. Emphasise that the responsibility solely lies with the batter to remain in their crease until the ball is delivered, and that the bowler should not have to warn the batter to do the right thing. Something that simple should bring the 'spirit' in line with the rules. My one reservation is that the last thing spectators want to see is bowlers running in with no intention of delivering the ball. It's a spectacle that detracts from the game, particularly in tight situations at the death. What we all want to see is a skill contest between bat and ball, not delays. With that in mind, I think what someone else suggested a couple of days ago - that the batting side should simply be denied the run if the batter leaves their crease before the ball is released - has merit. Essentially what happens with running one short. It might be a bit challenging to police, although at the elite level it's something the third umpire could monitor along with no balls.
JamesH
Roar Guru
True, but England say she wasn't warned. Knight went as far as accusing them of lying about that.
andrew
Guest
The point of a seeking a more 'obvious' instance is too subjective criticism. From the bowlers perspective they are running in focused on 'where am i aiming' before a split second decision - have they left or not and can i complete my action in time.
ken gargett
Guest
"I suppose it ultimately comes down to personal preference, whether you want to win honourably or whether you just want to win." i'd take strong exception to this statement. the batsman taking the unfair advantage is somehow presumed to be the honourable one here? give me a break. the non-striker is effectively cheating (call it taking an unfair advantage if you like but it is what it is). the bowler is well within rights to run them out (call it Mankad or whatever). indeed, i think there is a duty to do so. as for any obligation to warn them, what tosh. does the non striker need to warn anyone they'll be taking an unfair advantage. of course not. and as i have said elsewhere, i write this as someone who has been dismissed by this method - i was trying to gain an advantage and i have no issue with the bowler doing what he did. any suggestion that the bowler acting in a manner that was not honourable is ridiculous.
JOHN ALLAN
Guest
Congratulations Peter. Very insightful article. Just a suggestion. When you are explaining things to “Homer”, you have to dumb things down to enable him to comprehend the meaning. e.g. “the cat sat on the mat”.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
No, Homer, I don't believe I did say that. I was merely explaining why the situation is different from the scenarios you described and why I would prefer a warning first.
Homer Nixon
Guest
I don’t see any kind of “cricket skill” in pretending to bowl, pulling out of your action and effecting a run out at the bowler’s end. So you're saying bowlers can't dismiss a batsman legitimately because you don't think it's skillful to pay attention to it while in the bowling stride? Ok...
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
I agree deepoz...so my comment at 9.50am this morning.
deepoz
Roar Rookie
And the phrase "Mankading" is disgraceful and insulting a fantastic, all-round cricketer.
deepoz
Roar Rookie
Honestly, its a non-issue. The law was enacted to ensure that the non-striker doesn't get an unfair advantage. And he/she runs a risk of being run out, if decides to take that. Nothing new! Same as when the batter tries to "steal" a short single. The fact that Dean was so unaware of this law is the reason for her to be out anyways! We are discussing a professional cricketer here, rather than a weekend one ! I am amazed that instead of whining, why isn't any one saying that this needs to be instilled in the players by the coaches? If you are a professional cricketer, you must be aware of the laws...period!
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Thanks Tight-Head, I thought, as I typed, that somebody might make that point! :stoked: :stoked: :stoked: :stoked:
Tight-Head
Roar Rookie
I’d argue the final 4 would deserve to be out for sheer stupidity after seeing it happen the first time
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
PeterC, I refer you to my article. I never said a non-striker can not be run out. I advocated changing the rules so that a non-striker is at risk of being run-out if they leave their ground after the bowler's front foot lands and I advocated enshrining the convention of giving a warning. I do, however, understand the arguments in favour of a warning being unnecessary.
PeterCtheThird
Guest
Again, to push what you’ve said here a bit further: you want to see the bowler using all their skills to try to get the batter out. That suggests that no action can be taken against the non-batter. In that case, how far would you let them advance out of their crease and not be at risk of getting out? One yard? Two? Halfway down the pitch? Will the rest of the fielding side also be prohibited from taking action (i.e., the dreaded run-out) against the non-batter? If the non-batter cannot be given out, why bother having one? And so on.
PeterCtheThird
Guest
With the greatest respect… You have a rule that says the bowler can’t baulk, and another that says a batsman can be run out if they are out of their crease and the ball is live. Surely the batsman should be exercising the skill of doing their best not to get out, whether run out or in any other way. What kind of different cricket skill is involved in your best, fastest, fast bowler coming steaming in looking for all the world as if they are going to unleash yet another bouncer, but instead bowling a slower yorker? Is that not “pretending” and therefore somehow shameful?
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
AUTHOR'S NOTE: I used the term "Mankad" in my article several terms and that term also appears in the title. I have just read this article and I now profoundly regret using that terminology. Vinoo Mankad deserves a better legacy. I undertake not to use that term in the future and I urge others to do the same. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/mankad-did-so-much-more-than-run-people-out-20220927-p5bl89.html
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Hi Nightwatchmen, Having just read this terrific article, I agree we should stop using the term "Mankad". I now regret using it in my article and I won't use it in the future: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/mankad-did-so-much-more-than-run-people-out-20220927-p5bl89.html