Melbourne Stars captain Adam Zampa says he would have no issue attempting another Mankad dismissal after sparking controversy during a heated BBL derby loss to the Melbourne Renegades.
Tuesday night’s clash at the MCG reached a flashpoint when Zampa tried to run out Renegades tailender Tom Rogers as the non-striker crept out of his crease.
A video review led to Rogers being given not out because Zampa’s bowling arm had gone past its highest point before the legspinner reached back to knock the bails off.
Rogers had the last laugh, destroying the Stars’ batting order as he snared career-best figures of 5-16 to steer the Renegades to a 33-run win.
Zampa said he “saw red” when he spotted Rogers trying to steal ground. “I was well within my rights to do it,” Zampa said.
(Photo by Darrian Traynor – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
“It’s in the rule book. It’s well within the rules. As you saw, I just got my technique wrong and he was almost halfway down the wicket.”
Cricket’s latest Mankad controversy came less than a week after a tense Boxing Day Test exchange between Mitch Starc and Theunis de Bruyn, when the Australian quick threatened to run out his South African opponent.
It occurred during the final over of the Renegades’ innings as they posted 7-141, having been sent in to bat.
The Stars managed just 9-108 in reply, failing to recover after Rogers tore through the top order.
The right-arm paceman claimed 3-11 in his first two overs as the Renegades reduced their hosts to 4-18 in the fifth. Afghanistan spinner Mujeeb Ur Rahman (2-7) also strangled the Stars, bowling 17 dot balls in his four overs.
Rogers said he personally would not attempt to Mankad a batter but insisted he wasn’t fazed by Zampa’s decision.
“I’m a little bit confused by the rule but because it’s been flavour of the month for a little while I was probably staying in my crease for a little bit longer than I have in the past,” Rogers said. “I thought I was going to be ok … but the umpires are doing a good job and luckily it was not out.”
Zampa said he would not have followed through with a Mankad attempt earlier in the innings.
“Tenth over of the game if they’re trying to pinch ground then it’s probably more of a warning,” he said. “So late in the innings with two balls left, even if I Mankad someone and run him out then they’ve still got wickets in hand … so it doesn’t really make that much difference to the game.”
Stars coach David Hussey claimed during a sideline Fox Cricket interview that they would not have forced Rogers to walk if the third umpire had given him out.
“I spoke to Zamps already and he said if it had’ve been given out we would’ve withdrawn our appeal anyway. It’s not the right way to play cricket yet it was more of a warning to the batter not to leave too early because at the end of the innings that’s what generally happens.”
Test fast bowler Mitchell Starc twice warned South African batter Theunis de Bruyn about backing up too far during Australia’s emphatic win at the same venue.
Former Australian paceman Brett Lee on Fox Cricket commentary said it was not in the spirit of the game.
“I think if he goes past the bowling vertical, past where he’s meant to let go of the ball, it’s deemed that you can’t actually Mankad the batsman. I don’t like that rule, I don’t like the Mankad rule whatsoever, they should take it out of their hands.”
Fellow commentator Brad Haddin added: “It’s a bad look for the game.”
Zampa finished with 1-18 from his four overs as the Renegades set the Stars 142 for victory in their BBL derby which proved 32 too many for the run-chase.
Veteran left-hander Shaun Marsh top-scored on one leg. Marsh, who missed the start of the season with a calf strain, injured a hamstring when he slipped running between wickets at the MCG on Tuesday night.
The incident occurred early in his innings and the injury clearly hampered Marsh, who was unable to run anywhere near top speed.
It didn’t stop him playing an important role, posting 32 off 35 deliveries.
Martin Guptill scored 32 off 27, with the pair’s 51-run partnership and a late blast from Mackenzie Harvey (32 not out off 23) helping the Renegades reach 7-141 after they were sent in.
Marsh was eventually out to Stars paceman Trent Boult, lofting a simple catch to Nathan Coulter-Nile at mid-off.
Marsh’s latest setback comes after the Renegades lost captain Nic Maddinson (knee) and experienced batter Peter Handscomb (heat stress) in their previous game.
The result ended the Renegades’ four-match losing skid and balanced their season record at 4-4, but came at a cost when Shaun Marsh injured a hamstring while batting.
Nick Larkin hit an unbeaten 48 off 40 for the Stars, who have slumped to a 2-5 season record.
Kiwi quick Trent Boult (2-23) and English import Luke Wood (2-29) were the Stars’ best bowlers, while Zampa (1-18) also delivered a tight four overs.
Peter Darrow
Roar Guru
Bowlers get penalised when bowling no balls, overstepping the mark, so a off strike batsmen should not be allowed to walk out of his crease.
Simoc
Roar Rookie
Cams right. The others are way out. Mankading is legal and fine. There is a batting technique which the lazy batters aren't following. Zampa got it way wrong, most obviously as the umpire told him instantly.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Read the posts. You seem to have white line fever when you come on this site.
Mitcher
Guest
You got me. This lifelong swans fan has turned Richmond just to spite you. So… both Tom Rogers born in Canberra, right?
JGK
Roar Guru
If that’s the reading then the Sharma and Ashwin Mankads wouldn’t be out because the bails were dislodged after the bowler would have normally been expected To bowl the ball. It also makes it a nonsense of a policy because fast bowlers would generally be unable to effect a Mankad if they have to dislodge the bail before the time they would have normally delivered the ball.
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
The Mankad IS part of the rules. But the no-ball suggestion is worth considering, because once performing a Mankad is universally accepted, it won't be long until a bowler attempts it on every second run-up even if the non-striker is staying well within their crease.
Clear as mud
Guest
:happy: mmm i like it but don't agree at the same time. It's "normally would have been expected to release" not "expected to release normally". lawyers, guns and money... the sheet has hit the fan... PS i don't think premeditation automates to deliberate deceit. here the batter was going IMHO, he took his eyes off Zampa and just went - the fact that Zampa then completed his action was irrelevant to his act of leaving the crease early... and in the end saved him due to the UMp's contestable interpretation
Simoc
Roar Rookie
I'm all in favour of running the batsman out if he is leaving early but Rogers wasn't. Zampa was using deception to make out he was bowling and so it wasn't out. I think you do this in the first overs so the other team is on notice. Not right at the end. As for the bad look ex-cricketers talk; they need to check out a mirror if they're looking for a bad look. Cheating is a worse look and running them out should be normalised until they get the message.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
Yeah, that's the law but I wouldn't think an umpire would stand in the way of a withdrawn appeal for a run out at the non striker's end for any other reason but to draw attention to themselves. I have been in a game where the umpire refused a request to withdraw the appeal. That was because there was one batsman and a tail ended batting, with another top order batsman retired hurt to come in. Memory is a bit hazy, but I think it was a run out where both batsman were at one end and fielding skip thought the good bat was out, but umps gave the tailender. When skip wanted to withdraw the appeal the umps didn't think that was in the spirit of the game. Everyone copped the decision but confused all and sundry!
Dontcallmeshirley
Guest
Couldn't agree more. The Mankad should be legal and encouraged. Great entertainment value. We should also find a way to allow double plays like baseball. It is way too much of a batsman's game at the moment.
Clear as mud
Guest
yes but i am raising a different point here. the liability for leaving the crease is clearly limited to the described period - which makes sense, it eliminates the deliberate dummy. but i am less clear that the Law is clear about when the act of breaking the stumps has to occur (it can be inferred your way, but also mine). with a loose or confusing Law, does case law and precedent take over? and/or do they issue interpretative photos/videos?
AndyS
Guest
I think rather than 'instant', the key word is 'normally'. Is it normal for bowlers to go fully through the bowling action, then not release the ball? That argues premeditation and deliberate deceit, which would be why the law specifically introduces what the batsman would/could normally expect to happen. Very different from the Starc situation, where the bowler could see the batsman out of his crease and pulled up before going into the delivery stride.
Clear as mud
Guest
but backing up doesn't entitle you to leave the crease early (without the risk of runout). as i say below, most of us were taught to leave our bat in the crease - he is just walking down the wicket (and breaks into a run when he thinks the ball is gone) Glenn Phillips has the right approach - sprinter's stance, take off late, go hard - he was in his crease until the ball was delivered every time and sometimes right until the shot was played - but coiled and ready to go.
AndyS
Guest
Different if the decision was actually incorrect though. My understanding is that the fielding team can ask to withdraw the appeal. But having been asked and ruling it out, I could see some umpires refusing to revisit it if 'out' was demonstrably correct. Would certainly make for an even more frenzied discussion though... :laughing:
U
Roar Rookie
If you don’t want to get out, stay in your crease! I don’t get why people are crying about it
Cam
Roar Rookie
As indicated from the Zampa incident, once the arm goes past the vertical he is deemed to be beyond the expected release point. We will likely see this type of conjecture while the Mankad law is in place in it’s current iteration.
XI
Roar Guru
Yeah of course he's in the action of walking. That's what backing up is. That's like saying someone wouldn't be out bowled if their leg stump was in the ground.
Clear as mud
Guest
no Maxwell, no BBL. for me at least
Clear as mud
Guest
he's also allowed to be out of his crease earlier (as he was), just liable to be run out. the whole "Cheating/not cheating" commentary - which you didn't start - clouds a complex and vague situation IMHO to be honest they probably need to do what the AFL do and circulate some videos that interpret a strangely worded LAW - this is out, this won't be out etc etc
Clear as mud
Guest
and you CAN read it differently. it could relate to two separate acts - the batter being out of the crease in a selected period - and then (and thus) being liable to being run out. it doesn't specify that the act of hitting the stumps has to be within that same period. it might mean it, it might be how it's interpreted, but I submit m'lud that it's pretty opaque, like most "Laws"?