Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Your Cricket => Topic started by: Chompy9760 on March 11, 2019, 11:16:03 AM
-
Greetings all. I'm back coaching U-16's after some time off, and thought I'd bounce the question off a few guys, to feel for the state of play.
I played a lot of cricket through the 80's and 90's and never once saw a Mankad dismissal, as it was regarded as a pretty low act. I saw a couple 'warnings' but I don't think the opportunity ever presented itself very often.
Now coaching juniors, as I'm umpiring, I've noticed a couple opposition players well out of their crease as the ball is bowled - not by cm, but by a metre, an not occasionally, but every ball.
I've spoken to one player's coach, who was umpiring at the time, and he was of the opinion that it would teach him a lesson, as the kid never listened to his coach about this despite being repeatedly told! I discretely told the bowler to give him a 'warning', but he either didn't understand, or didn't want to do it - I didn't clarify. So it kept happening all the time that batsman was at the crease.
On the weekend another opposition player was doing it, a metre or more out of his crease, and running down the pitch - every ball. It's an unfair advantage to do this, takes advantage of the bowler's reluctance to dismiss this way, but if there are no consequences, it will only get worse. I'm of the opinion that I won't let my kids be taken advantage of, and will instruct bowlers to carefully watch for this and not give warnings. Coming into finals they've had all year for their coaches to sort it out, and I'm not talking about 10 year olds, these kids are 14 and should know better.
A bit of searching brought up this :-
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiny6D58vngAhXNeisKHZULA0cQFjABegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cricket.com.au%2Fnews%2Fmankad-dismissal-cricket-australia-jlt-cup-sheffield-shield-bowlers-non-striker-peter-roach%2F2017-10-01&usg=AOvVaw3lGOR9eWK-0HfK8RgIk5qI (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiny6D58vngAhXNeisKHZULA0cQFjABegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cricket.com.au%2Fnews%2Fmankad-dismissal-cricket-australia-jlt-cup-sheffield-shield-bowlers-non-striker-peter-roach%2F2017-10-01&usg=AOvVaw3lGOR9eWK-0HfK8RgIk5qI)
Seeing I've been away for a while, what is the current opinion on Mankading where you play?
What would you do if you were me?
-
Personally, if someone is taking a metre every ball I wouldn't bother with a warning - I'd just run them out. They're making their own bed by trying to steal runs, and after all it is the fielding team's job to stop them! I think that's against prevailing opinion in most sides I've played with though.
-
I still think you should give a warning - those clips of the WI/Butler/HK are pretty bad to be honest, not in the spirit of the game - not like any batsman was trying to get a head start.
-
Definitely give a warning first.
Especially as they are kids. Should be teaching the spirit of cricket as well as the technique always.
After the warning I have no problem in following through with it. Even next ball if it's necessary.
-
I think there is a big difference between a player trying to steal a head start and a player backing up as normal who is a fraction early leaving his crease. The incident from the u19 world cup was embarrassing. In a case such as that, the captain should have withdrawn the appeal. In a case where the batsman is genuinely trying to sneak a yard before the ball is bowled, I would say that a warning should be given. That usually resolves the problem without dragging the game down
-
I have never got the whole spirit of the game argument around the mankad. If a player is 2 inches out on a run-out, they're out. Why should they be allowed to steal that amount without repercussions at the start of the delivery?
-
For me the difference is that you are run out attempting a run - nobody in the 3 clips was attempting a run - lazy backing up, yes, but the HK clip, the bowler pretends to bowl (its akin to someone diving to get a penalty), the batsman is looking for where the ball was headed and carried on backing up (slowly). There's a big difference between those 3 situations and someone in a sprint position trying to steal a march and get down the wicket sooner.
-
And what is the difference when the batsman is stumped attempting a shot? They're not attempting a run.
Players are lazy because they know they can get away with it. If the laws were enforced players would soon be more alert to it.
-
my only opinion on this is that it's very difficult to apply the law correctly. there are numerous interpretations of exactly when in the bowler's delivery stride he is allowed to run a batsman out, and when he is not. when i was younger i always believed that when the bowler entered his delivery stride - ie his back foot landed - i was able to start backing up. however i'm not sure that is the right position.
the Laws say as follows:
"41.16 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early
If the non-striker is out of his/her 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 him/her 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."
Note this doesn't say when the ball comes into play - you need to find a different Law for that. In practice, the time lag between "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball" and "when the batsman has stepped out of his ground" can be quite a long split-second, and it's not reasonably practicable for an umpire to give a batsman out.
-
Its either within the laws, in which case its fine, or its not. I have a problem with people trying to impose their own moral code on cricket. Its not your right to decide what is and isn't acceptable.
So yes, run them out, without a warning, and if you're daft enough to get run out like this then take it on the chin and walk off and learn your lesson.
The one thing I would say is, the bowler needs to do it correctly - stop when you get level with the stumps and knock the bails straight off. Don't pretend to bowl and then spin back around like you think you're clever, because it doesn't count if you've gone past the point you would normally let go of the ball.
I had one idiot do this and then say "this is your warning". I said "warn yourself, idiot, its a dead ball"
-
For me the difference is that you are run out attempting a run - nobody in the 3 clips was attempting a run - lazy backing up, yes, but the HK clip, the bowler pretends to bowl (its akin to someone diving to get a penalty), the batsman is looking for where the ball was headed and carried on backing up (slowly). There's a big difference between those 3 situations and someone in a sprint position trying to steal a march and get down the wicket sooner.
How do you know if you're attempting a run until you see where the ball goes. Every ball is a potential attempted run.
Whining about mankading is on a par with whining about stumpings. Its a legitimate part of the game, get on with it.
-
my only opinion on this is that it's very difficult to apply the law correctly. there are numerous interpretations of exactly when in the bowler's delivery stride he is allowed to run a batsman out, and when he is not. when i was younger i always believed that when the bowler entered his delivery stride - ie his back foot landed - i was able to start backing up. however i'm not sure that is the right position.
the Laws say as follows:
"41.16 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early
If the non-striker is out of his/her 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 him/her 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."
Note this doesn't say when the ball comes into play - you need to find a different Law for that. In practice, the time lag between "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball" and "when the batsman has stepped out of his ground" can be quite a long split-second, and it's not reasonably practicable for an umpire to give a batsman out.
The ball comes into play once the bowler begins his run-up.
Both batsmen are then liable to being run out at any point up to the moment the bowler would normally be expected to release the ball.
So the bowler can stop at any point in his run up and throw down the stumps at either end and its perfectly legitimate.
But if he actually gets into his delivery stride and pretends to bowl, then its dead ball.
As the non-striker, you used to be safe as soon as the back foot hit the ground. Now its the moment the bowling arm comes above shoulder height.
-
The ball comes into play once the bowler begins his run-up.
Both batsmen are then liable to being run out at any point up to the moment the bowler would normally be expected to release the ball.
So the bowler can stop at any point in his run up and throw down the stumps at either end and its perfectly legitimate.
But if he actually gets into his delivery stride and pretends to bowl, then its dead ball.
As the non-striker, you used to be safe as soon as the back foot hit the ground. Now its the moment the bowling arm comes above shoulder height.
So the Butler one and the HK one should have been called "dead ball"? Both bowlers I would say got into their delivery stride.
-
one warning, after that everything is fair game
-
Thanks to all for the replies. I know it's a contentious issue, so I'm taking it seriously and want to make the correct judgement before instructing my players what to do and how to do it, should the situation arise again.
Both incidents this year have been blatant cases of being a metre or more outside the crease at the delivery stride. A Mankad in either of them would certainly not be 'sneaky' like the WI U-19 one.
I get the point of giving a warning. That was my first thought, but the more I think about it, there's a huge double standard here.
To expand on Tom's point, If a batsman took guard a metre out of the crease, would the wicket keeper feel obliged to give him a warning before stumping him?? What's the difference?
-
If you are standing out of your ground in your stance, you are doing so deliberately to gain an advantage in the full knowledge you can be stumped. If you are a meter out of your crease backing up, then after a warning and keep doing it, you know you can be run out as you are trying to gain an advantage. None of the mankads on the link you posted involved people trying to gain an advantage - in my view. Appreciate everyone sees it differently - however I'm pretty sure most of us would feel more than a little aggrieved if we were the non-striker in any 3 of those examples, whether it be technically correct or not. Spirit of cricket has been a huge topic over the past 12 months and for me, this type of thing is totally against the spirit of the game.
-
If a player lifts his foot from the crease when batting, or leaves it by 1cm he's not trying to gain an advantage. He's just got lazy, lost their bearings or overbalanced. I will never understand how at one end of the wicket that's deemed an acceptable wicket to get, yet at the other, it's frowned upon (often more so than ball tampering).
Either something is allowed under the laws of a sport or it isn’t. If you don’t want people doing it make it illegal in the laws.
-
As I said, it's my view, doesn't make me right, doesn't make you wrong - you are correct that by strict interpretation, it is out. However, this mode of dismissal doesn't sit right with me - unless the batter is really taking the pi$$. The incident with Collingwood continuing his appeal in the Sidebottom/Grant Elliott incident in 2008 is the same for me - according to the Laws, it is out - however doesn't make it the right thing to do in my opinion, which Collingwood admitted himself afterwards.
-
Same goes for the underarm incident with Trevor Chappell - nothing illegal in what was done at the time but we all know how that is viewed now.
-
If you leave your crease you’re trying to gain an advantage by ‘backing up’. Run them out.
Batsmen should know not to leave their crease until the ball is bowled and if you’re watching you know when it’s released.. if you’re not watching but just going of when he ‘should’ release it you’re guessing so deserve to be runout. It’s not hard to keep your bat in after all, it’s only hard if you’re actively trying to steal a yard.
Spirit of the game is all great if consistently applied but it isn’t. Sledging, Appelling for lbw when you know it hit the bat, pitched outside, was missing etc are all more acts of bad spirit. Then you have fake throwing, throwing the ball at the stumps when the batsmen is there as it serves no purpose but to try and intimidate..
List could go on and on about bad sportsmanship or against the spirit.. the spirit is dead, more so now than ever.
Does the keeper give a warning about a stumping ?? Nope.. don’t warn over mankad
-
I'm not saying you're wrong, just interested to know the thought process behind why one differs and one doesn't. I don't play much at all (once a season max) so have always found the spirit of cricket a funny one. Players will happily use a laminated bat, dig their fingers into the seam, or run down the middle of the pitch. But when it comes to something perfectly legal, like a mankad, it's a big no-no!
P.S I totally understand why they were frowned upon, in days gone by, where cricket was dominated by the longer forms of the game, with the game played in a less intense manner and one run here and there not making a dramatic difference. But as the game becomes shorter and more intense I'd like to see that change, there's no excuse for a non-striker to be switching off and the game is tilted enough in the direction of the batsman.
-
As I said, it's my view, doesn't make me right, doesn't make you wrong - you are correct that by strict interpretation, it is out. However, this mode of dismissal doesn't sit right with me - unless the batter is really taking the pi$$. The incident with Collingwood continuing his appeal in the Sidebottom/Grant Elliott incident in 2008 is the same for me - according to the Laws, it is out - however doesn't make it the right thing to do in my opinion, which Collingwood admitted himself afterwards.
So is orcastraded appealing ok?
Appealing when it pitched outside leg? (Assume playing a shot etc)
Appealing when it hit above the knee role on the front foot ??
Appealing when it hit the inside of the bat first ?
Threatening the throw the ball at the stumps when the batsmen is in his crease ?
Sledging
Double appealing
Appealing to pile pressure on the umpire
Pretending to throw the ball in when you’ve miss fielded
Sliding in front of the ball just as someone is about to field it to make the bats think you’ve got to the ball
Where does it end ?? Why is one more acceptable than the other ??
-
Why is being stumped within the "spirit", but not mankad??
-
If a player lifts his foot from the crease when batting, or leaves it by 1cm he's not trying to gain an advantage. He's just got lazy, lost their bearings or overbalanced. I will never understand how at one end of the wicket that's deemed an acceptable wicket to get, yet at the other, it's frowned upon (often more so than ball tampering).
Either something is allowed under the laws of a sport or it isn’t. If you don’t want people doing it make it illegal in the laws.
Well said
-
My view is that advancing down before the bowler has bowled is cheating and not in the spirit of the game, so running them out is as fair game as a stumping or any other legitimate dismissal.
The laws were changed to demonstrate that.
-
I looked at the 3 videos and the Oman v/s HK I have a hard time understanding. The bowler was already in the process of delivering the ball and pulled out do a Mankad after rotating his arm. Buttler had a warning and he should have know better to leave early.
-
If you are standing out of your ground in your stance, you are doing so deliberately to gain an advantage in the full knowledge you can be stumped. If you are a meter out of your crease backing up, then after a warning and keep doing it, you know you can be run out as you are trying to gain an advantage. None of the mankads on the link you posted involved people trying to gain an advantage - in my view. Appreciate everyone sees it differently - however I'm pretty sure most of us would feel more than a little aggrieved if we were the non-striker in any 3 of those examples, whether it be technically correct or not. Spirit of cricket has been a huge topic over the past 12 months and for me, this type of thing is totally against the spirit of the game.
zero sense. The entire point of backing up is to try to gain an advantage, otherwise why do it?
Leave the crease early at your own risk. If you get caught, that's your fault. If you moan, even under your breath, because your somehow feel you're owed a warning, you're the one with a spirit of cricket deficit, not the bowler.
-
I think there needs to be a level of common sense between the 'just backing up a bit too far' and the 'blatant starting a run before the bowler has even bowled'.
There is a massive difference between the 2. I mean if you were genuinely talking about Mankadd being a proper fair form of regular dismissal then you could run someone out every over.
If you honestly think about it can you definitely say every ball you are standing there with your bat grounded in crease, because I have never tried to steal a run in my life but I definitely can't say that I was always in.
-
I think there needs to be a level of common sense between the 'just backing up a bit too far' and the 'blatant starting a run before the bowler has even bowled'.
There is a massive difference between the 2. I mean if you were genuinely talking about Mankadd being a proper fair form of regular dismissal then you could run someone out every over.
If you honestly think about it can you definitely say every ball you are standing there with your bat grounded in crease, because I have never tried to steal a run in my life but I definitely can't say that I was always in.
I can genuinely say with 100 % certainty that I've very very rarely left the crease early, and when I have I've been fully aware I was doing it and running the risk of being mankaded.
Had it ever happened, I'd have said fair play bowler and walked off with a rueful grin on my face.
-
I think there needs to be a level of common sense between the 'just backing up a bit too far' and the 'blatant starting a run before the bowler has even bowled'.
There is a massive difference between the 2. I mean if you were genuinely talking about Mankadd being a proper fair form of regular dismissal then you could run someone out every over.
If you honestly think about it can you definitely say every ball you are standing there with your bat grounded in crease, because I have never tried to steal a run in my life but I definitely can't say that I was always in.
But that's because the Mankad isn't a risk, you just don't have to worry about it. If batsman started getting mankaded, you can guarantee batsman would be careful about having their bat grounded just as they are with having their foot grounded when at the other end.
Anywhere else on the pitch (whether a bowler/keeper/batsman) you risk being penalised if you lose focus. But at the non-striker's end, you're not.
The whole spirit of cricket thing introduces grey areas where batsman can steal runs, without risk of penalty. If you just play by the laws then it's not a concern.
-
So the consensus is, we teach kids to Mankad/run out, just like any other mode of dismissal?
-
If you back up properly you leave the crease as the bowler releases rendering this redundant
However of your bowling a warning then run out!
-
So is orcastraded appealing ok?
Appealing when it pitched outside leg? (Assume playing a shot etc)
Appealing when it hit above the knee role on the front foot ??
Appealing when it hit the inside of the bat first ?
Threatening the throw the ball at the stumps when the batsmen is in his crease ?
Sledging
Double appealing
Appealing to pile pressure on the umpire
Pretending to throw the ball in when you’ve miss fielded
Sliding in front of the ball just as someone is about to field it to make the bats think you’ve got to the ball
Where does it end ?? Why is one more acceptable than the other ??
None of that is ok, didn’t say it was. And fake fieldinghas been banned now, because it’s against the spirit of the game
-
I think there needs to be a level of common sense between the 'just backing up a bit too far' and the 'blatant starting a run before the bowler has even bowled'.
There is a massive difference between the 2. I mean if you were genuinely talking about Mankadd being a proper fair form of regular dismissal then you could run someone out every over.
If you honestly think about it can you definitely say every ball you are standing there with your bat grounded in crease, because I have never tried to steal a run in my life but I definitely can't say that I was always in.
Yep, I’ve never left the crease until the ball is actually bowled. However.... in 2020’s or late game I have but I fully expect to get out at some point should a bowler wish.. it’s my risk and I decide that the reward of backing up is worth the risk of mankad..
Depends on the situation and basically if you’re willing to risk it.. risk vs reward
-
So the consensus is, we teach kids to Mankad/run out, just like any other mode of dismissal?
I would certainly hope not as it is a fairly grubby way to play the game if the players are looking out for this sort of thing. A sensible piece of umpiring just to let the batsman know he needs to stay in his crease, possibly with a warning from the bowler if the umpire doesn't spot it should be sufficient.
I certainly wouldn't give a player out in a junior game in this manner if I was umpiring. The spirit of cricket clearly means different things to different people but in my view this sort of thing has no place in a game between children
-
I would certainly hope not as it is a fairly grubby way to play the game if the players are looking out for this sort of thing. A sensible piece of umpiring just to let the batsman know he needs to stay in his crease, possibly with a warning from the bowler if the umpire doesn't spot it should be sufficient.
I certainly wouldn't give a player out in a junior game in this manner if I was umpiring. The spirit of cricket clearly means different things to different people but in my view this sort of thing has no place in a game between children
This is the part of the anti-mankad 'spirit of cricket' thing that's always really confused me - why is it ok to try and steal yards, to cheat by running before the bowler has bowled, but it isn't ok to run someone out? I get the spirit of cricket thing, good sportsmanship makes the game better. To my mind running before the bowler's let go is far more against the spirit of the game than running someone out at the non-strikers end is. The line's there for a reason, if you're on the wrong side of it you get run out/stumped/no-balled and it's entirely your own fault, even if your opponent has been Keemo Paul level sneaky. No different from a keeper waiting for a batsman to lift their foot for a stumping, as others have mentioned.
-
one warning, after that everything is fair game
This.
-
I would certainly hope not as it is a fairly grubby way to play the game if the players are looking out for this sort of thing. A sensible piece of umpiring just to let the batsman know he needs to stay in his crease, possibly with a warning from the bowler if the umpire doesn't spot it should be sufficient.
I certainly wouldn't give a player out in a junior game in this manner if I was umpiring. The spirit of cricket clearly means different things to different people but in my view this sort of thing has no place in a game between children
If you're not willing to umpire according to the laws, then you shouldn't be umpiring. Full stop. You can't just make up your own rules.
-
I think it would be interesting to hit the pause button on the TV during a game and see where abouts the international players are at the point of possible mankadd etc...
-
If you're not willing to umpire according to the laws, then you shouldn't be umpiring. Full stop. You can't just make up your own rules.
The game has to be played within both the laws of the game and the spirit of the game so it is entirely within an empire's gift to do this. Most County Umpires Associations run umpiring courses over the winter at competitive rates if you ever want to learn the laws of the game
-
This is the part of the anti-mankad 'spirit of cricket' thing that's always really confused me - why is it ok to try and steal yards, to cheat by running before the bowler has bowled, but it isn't ok to run someone out? I get the spirit of cricket thing, good sportsmanship makes the game better. To my mind running before the bowler's let go is far more against the spirit of the game than running someone out at the non-strikers end is. The line's there for a reason, if you're on the wrong side of it you get run out/stumped/no-balled and it's entirely your own fault, even if your opponent has been Keemo Paul level sneaky. No different from a keeper waiting for a batsman to lift their foot for a stumping, as others have mentioned.
In the majority of cases I don't believe that batsman are trying to steal extra yards , they are simply backing up as is the case in those videos at the start of the post and have left the crease at the point that they are expecting the ball to be delivered.
There are many parts of the game where sensible game management by umpires can resolve minor issues without spoiling the game. An umpire doesn't have to tell a bowler he is close to the front line or the danger zone, or tell the fielding captain that he doesn't have enough players in the fielding circle during a limited overs game but a sensible umpire will know when a quick word will deal with problem.
For me, Mankading is a bit like trying to time a player out. Plainly the laws would permit an appeal if the batsman doesn't enter the field of play within the alloted time (or in the t20 games I play in, enters the field of play before the departing batsman has left it) but I haven't yet played in a game where anyone has seriously considered enforcing this law
-
I like this topic as I think it's become one of those elements of the game people are trying to hold onto it as a sign that the "spirit of the game" is still alive. I think its the wrong way to look at it, As a kid I was taught to back up but with my bat still grounded behind the crease, you very rarely see that these days and the advent of run a ball cricket has resulted in the non striker basically taking an advantage.... I have no problem with the advantage if you are happy to accept the risk of being run out.... after all the game is all about risk and application.
Last year I attended a number of sessions with Kieth Tunnicliffe who I believe is an umpiring coach and he was very clear no the subject.. its a valid form of dismissal and there is no where in the rules that requires a warning.... after all we don't warn for any other form of dismissal so why this one.
Just like the new rules for deception in the field etc when the game has moved on to be so fast every player will push the boundaries and this element of the game(and peoples attitudes towards it) needs to move on also.
Personally the spirit of the game is far more hurt in other areas such as the language / threats used on the field, the lack of respect and recognition for an opposition players achievement such as a 50 or a great stop in the field.... and the influx of 2/3 player teams - basically those teams chasing results by getting a small number of outstanding players who do everything like open the the bowling and the batting... no wonder we struggle to attract players in those situations and for me when teams no longer need everyone or can allow everyone in the team to contribute... is when the spirit is lost.
We should set up a "Mankad" (hate that word also) tally thread, see who can get the most in a season - individual and team scores. Batters get -1 and the person with the lowest number could win a Extra long handled bat to help them back up more appropriately next season :-)
-
The game has to be played within both the laws of the game and the spirit of the game so it is entirely within an empire's gift to do this. Most County Umpires Associations run umpiring courses over the winter at competitive rates if you ever want to learn the laws of the game
I've been a qualified umpire for 15 years, thanks.
The mcc have clarified, repeatedly, that mankading is within both the spirit and the laws of cricket. Its as normal and acceptable as stumping. No warning is necessary, and the umpire should not hesitate to dismiss a batsmen caught or of his crease.
Don't like that, go officiate some other sport. We could do without umpires who think they're above the game.
-
I like this topic as I think it's become one of those elements of the game people are trying to hold onto it as a sign that the "spirit of the game" is still alive. I think its the wrong way to look at it, As a kid I was taught to back up but with my bat still grounded behind the crease, you very rarely see that these days and the advent of run a ball cricket has resulted in the non striker basically taking an advantage.... I have no problem with the advantage if you are happy to accept the risk of being run out.... after all the game is all about risk and application.
Last year I attended a number of sessions with Kieth Tunnicliffe who I believe is an umpiring coach and he was very clear no the subject.. its a valid form of dismissal and there is no where in the rules that requires a warning.... after all we don't warn for any other form of dismissal so why this one.
Just like the new rules for deception in the field etc when the game has moved on to be so fast every player will push the boundaries and this element of the game(and peoples attitudes towards it) needs to move on also.
Personally the spirit of the game is far more hurt in other areas such as the language / threats used on the field, the lack of respect and recognition for an opposition players achievement such as a 50 or a great stop in the field.... and the influx of 2/3 player teams - basically those teams chasing results by getting a small number of outstanding players who do everything like open the the bowling and the batting... no wonder we struggle to attract players in those situations and for me when teams no longer need everyone or can allow everyone in the team to contribute... is when the spirit is lost.
We should set up a "Mankad" (hate that word also) tally thread, see who can get the most in a season - individual and team scores. Batters get -1 and the person with the lowest number could win a Extra long handled bat to help them back up more appropriately next season :-)
You know what is really dispicable and contrary to the spirit of cricket? A young player who has learnt the laws, paid attention, and skillfully dismissed an opponent through a correct mankading and earnt his team a wicket, only to be humiliated by some arrogant umpire and falsely accused of cheating.
There's no place in the game for that. Any umpire willing to publicly humiliate a child in such a manner should be removed from the game immediately and never asked to stand again.
-
Personally I think as a bowler/fielder you only really notice a chance for this if someone is backing up 'too' aggressively, if thats the case I'd have no issuse mankading them (in a competative game anyway). As a bowler I'd be worried if I was noticving a batsman backed up a few cam too far as I hit my delivery stride.
I think th4e game always evolves over time, and this is no seen different as compared to 15-20 years ago. Much like sweeping etc, when I was a kid in the 90's there were still plenty of umpires that would trigger you any chance they got if you played those sort of shots that they didn't consider 'cricket', now you see then on a daily basis.
I have previously given multiple 'warnings' without ever actually mankading someone but I think having through about and discussed it that i would now, espoecially as we play a lot more shorter format games where run 'stealing' can be game changing.
-
Personally I think as a bowler/fielder you only really notice a chance for this if someone is backing up 'too' aggressively, if thats the case I'd have no issuse mankading them (in a competative game anyway). As a bowler I'd be worried if I was noticving a batsman backed up a few cam too far as I hit my delivery stride.
I think th4e game always evolves over time, and this is no seen different as compared to 15-20 years ago. Much like sweeping etc, when I was a kid in the 90's there were still plenty of umpires that would trigger you any chance they got if you played those sort of shots that they didn't consider 'cricket', now you see then on a daily basis.
I have previously given multiple 'warnings' without ever actually mankading someone but I think having through about and discussed it that i would now, espoecially as we play a lot more shorter format games where run 'stealing' can be game changing.
As far as I'm concerned, in any league fixture, any mode of dismissal is a viable option, either for me or against me, and no-one should have any complaints.
Obviously in a friendly match, a hopelessly one-sided game, or when you're playing against kids or inexperienced cricketers, you might try to tread that line between being generous without being patronising. That applies to choosing not to execute stumpings or run outs, and deliberately not appealing for lbws.
But its the players right to decide this, not the umpire. The umpire is the servant of the game, there at the captains' discretion, and should uphold the laws as he is instructed else he will be removed from the field.
-
Wow! Many thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread. I really do appreciate all of your input and advice, as there have been many excellent points made.
Yes, it's Junior cricket, and I am big on making sure its a friendly, respectful, fun (dare I say traditional?!) environment, but I refuse to let opposition batsmen take advantage of my team, thinking they are above consequences. I'll keep you posted on how it turns out - we may not meet those two teams from now on, but if we do, we will be prepared.
It seems that attitudes to the Mankad haven't changed much over the last 40 years. Quite a few divided opinions, but it was a question well worth asking.
Thanks!
-
Wow! Many thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread. I really do appreciate all of your input and advice, as there have been many excellent points made.
Yes, it's Junior cricket, and I am big on making sure its a friendly, respectful, fun (dare I say traditional?!) environment, but I refuse to let opposition batsmen take advantage of my team, thinking they are above consequences. I'll keep you posted on how it turns out - we may not meet those two teams from now on, but if we do, we will be prepared.
It seems that attitudes to the Mankad haven't changed much over the last 40 years. Quite a few divided opinions, but it was a question well worth asking.
Thanks!
I encourage you to teach your juniors to see the mankad as a legitimate dismissal in the same way as a stumping, and teach them both how to do it properly and how to avoid getting mankaded.
In the spirit of openness, you might want to give opposing coaches a pre-season email mentioning that this is your philosophy.
-
I encourage you to teach your juniors to see the mankad as a legitimate dismissal in the same way as a stumping, and teach them both how to do it properly and how to avoid getting mankaded.
In the spirit of openness, you might want to give opposing coaches a pre-season email mentioning that this is your philosophy.
Using your line of thinking about mankad'ing, why the need to be open about it then? if it's in the laws of the game, then surely no need to have any spirit of openness?
-
Using your line of thinking about mankad'ing, why the need to be open about it then? if it's in the laws of the game, then surely no need to have any spirit of openness?
Other coaches might not share the same opinion. Of course, this means that they are wrong whereas you are right, and absolutely you shouldn't bow to any pressure they might put on you to give warnings or any other ridiculous notions, but sometimes being considerate is more important than being right, and if a quick email prevents a blazing row in the middle of a game, then its worth the effort.
Plus, it might encourage them to follow suit, which means even more kids are being taught a correct understanding of the rules, which at the end of the day is why we're all here.
-
Using your line of thinking about mankad'ing, why the need to be open about it then? if it's in the laws of the game, then surely no need to have any spirit of openness?
People do get their knickers in a twist about it. Normally people who wouldn't know the spirit of cricket if it slapped them round the face, in my experience! I've yet to hear a good argument for not running players out at the non-striker's end though. Have played in indoor leagues where it's been actively encouraged - funnily enough no batsmen stole yards then.
-
I've thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread.
Interesting views from both sides and good healthy debate.
Personally, if it happened to me or a team mate I would probably feel annoyed in the moment but also have to accept that its valid.
-
This is the part of the anti-mankad 'spirit of cricket' thing that's always really confused me - why is it ok to try and steal yards, to cheat by running before the bowler has bowled, but it isn't ok to run someone out? I get the spirit of cricket thing, good sportsmanship makes the game better. To my mind running before the bowler's let go is far more against the spirit of the game than running someone out at the non-strikers end is. The line's there for a reason, if you're on the wrong side of it you get run out/stumped/no-balled and it's entirely your own fault, even if your opponent has been Keemo Paul level sneaky. No different from a keeper waiting for a batsman to lift their foot for a stumping, as others have mentioned.
Spirit of cricket is meaningless (believe me, I wish it wasn’t).
If people played to the spirit you wouldn’t have sledging, you wouldn’t have square leg appealing for lbws.. you wouldn’t have people appealing simply because it hit the pad etc etc
Why is one way seen as ‘grubby’ and yet these others are ‘part of the game’
-
A warning and then out.
Bowler is only allowed to get you out as part of the bowling action.
That's what I was taught at quite a sport reknown school in Australia in the 80s.
-
A warning and then out.
Bowler is only allowed to get you out as part of the bowling action.
That's what I was taught at quite a sport reknown school in Australia in the 80s.
Huh, both of which are wrong.
-
I'll have to go back in time and tell the Christian Brothers.
-
Wow! Many thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread. I really do appreciate all of your input and advice, as there have been many excellent points made.
Yes, it's Junior cricket, and I am big on making sure its a friendly, respectful, fun (dare I say traditional?!) environment, but I refuse to let opposition batsmen take advantage of my team, thinking they are above consequences. I'll keep you posted on how it turns out - we may not meet those two teams from now on, but if we do, we will be prepared.
It seems that attitudes to the Mankad haven't changed much over the last 40 years. Quite a few divided opinions, but it was a question well worth asking.
Thanks!
I certainly think that there has been a change in the general attitude towards junior cricket from when I started playing 30 years ago. There is a generally a more competitive win at all costs culture that has gradually developed which I certainly don't see as a positive. I am a Club Chairman and from my perspective I am not too concerned whether our u9s win their league this year, success to me is how many of them are still playing in 10-15 years time. We run 5 senior teams with at least 95% of those that play in those sides being former or current junior players at the Club so it is vital that we keep players interested in the game. It does worry me that the spirit now present in junior cricket isn't conducive to that.
To use one example local to me, the ECB encourages leagues to allow girls to play up to 2 years below their actual age. For most people this is a fairly sensible allowance so that girls can play in games that are competitive compared to their skills if they aren't at the general level of male players in their own age group. However, there are some very good female players who would ruin a game if they played below their actual age group particularly given that girls and generally taller than boys in the lower age groups. Most Clubs are sensible about this by not putting county standard girls into games far below the standard they can play at. Unfortunately, one Club decided to stick to the letter of the league rules and put their county standard girls into every game they could play in (including putting a girl who plays every Saturday in one of the Club's senior sides into an U11 soft ball game). The Club ended the season winning a number of junior leagues in this way, which has resulted in the league rules being changed by the County Board with the result that sensible clubs can no longer use their discretion. Of course, the Club in question has acted entirely within the league rules but not in the spirit of them which ruined those games for those involved.
-
I certainly think that there has been a change in the general attitude towards junior cricket from when I started playing 30 years ago. There is a generally a more competitive win at all costs culture that has gradually developed which I certainly don't see as a positive. I am a Club Chairman and from my perspective I am not too concerned whether our u9s win their league this year, success to me is how many of them are still playing in 10-15 years time. We run 5 senior teams with at least 95% of those that play in those sides being former or current junior players at the Club so it is vital that we keep players interested in the game. It does worry me that the spirit now present in junior cricket isn't conducive to that.
To use one example local to me, the ECB encourages leagues to allow girls to play up to 2 years below their actual age. For most people this is a fairly sensible allowance so that girls can play in games that are competitive compared to their skills if they aren't at the general level of male players in their own age group. However, there are some very good female players who would ruin a game if they played below their actual age group particularly given that girls and generally taller than boys in the lower age groups. Most Clubs are sensible about this by not putting county standard girls into games far below the standard they can play at. Unfortunately, one Club decided to stick to the letter of the league rules and put their county standard girls into every game they could play in (including putting a girl who plays every Saturday in one of the Club's senior sides into an U11 soft ball game). The Club ended the season winning a number of junior leagues in this way, which has resulted in the league rules being changed by the County Board with the result that sensible clubs can no longer use their discretion. Of course, the Club in question has acted entirely within the league rules but not in the spirit of them which ruined those games for those involved.
Parents only care about winning ... kids don’t really care as long as it’s fun .... clubs love the income that comes from kids... winning brings more parents.. more kids.. more subs and bar takings...
Win at all costs is sadly here to stay but will result is less enjoyment and less participation overall
-
Parents only care about winning ... kids don’t really care as long as it’s fun .... clubs love the income that comes from kids... winning brings more parents.. more kids.. more subs and bar takings...
Win at all costs is sadly here to stay but will result is less enjoyment and less participation overall
I have been coaching our youth teams for the last 7 seasons, and have only witnessed this a couple of times. Every match is played with the idea of every kid getting a go, and other coaches have the same philosophy.
Whilst the extra income is great, it is definitely not the main reason for running a youth section at my club (or others we play). It is run with the intention of keeping the club going in the future. Maybe we are lucky in Bristol that the majority of clubs have the same idea and all other places are win at all costs but I doubt it, and think you are making a bit of a generalisation.
-
Where did the crazy name of this out come from?
-
Must say this win at all costs, parents only care about winning, umpires should be harsh on kids rubbish would be the final straw for me and my kids participating in cricket.
Yes our league cricket is played hard but mainly within the rules but for kids it’s about having fun and enjoying the game. Our kids colts cricket isn’t like this and fortunately neither are the kids teams our club plays.
In this Instance in kids cricket I would ensure a warning was given to the batter and if he/she ignored that I would speak to the captain/coach to have a word and if they still did it fair enough. But in kids cricket we really should encourage more spirit of the game as it’s become lost with sat /Sunday’s players thinking and acting like it’s a professional end of the world kind of importance to win at all costs.
-
I'm a 'warning first' advocate, it's one of the spirit-of-the-game things I was taught as a kid. Similarly, I walk if I know I've nicked it, I let an oppo bowler know if he's close to no-balling and I've even halted an oppo bowler from running in if his captain has accidentally positioned 3 behind square. I just think there is honour in our game that transcends the winning, and that's something i feel is worth preserving.
But then, I just play Sunday 2s cricket, so it's not life or death!
-
Where did the crazy name of this out come from?
Vinoo Mankad of India ran out Bill Brown of Australia in this way, on the 13th December 1947, at the test match in Sydney. He had given Brown a warning for backing up too far in a previous match on the tour. You can imagine the reaction in the Aussie press, but Bradman was ok with it.
-
I have been coaching our youth teams for the last 7 seasons, and have only witnessed this a couple of times. Every match is played with the idea of every kid getting a go, and other coaches have the same philosophy.
Whilst the extra income is great, it is definitely not the main reason for running a youth section at my club (or others we play). It is run with the intention of keeping the club going in the future. Maybe we are lucky in Bristol that the majority of clubs have the same idea and all other places are win at all costs but I doubt it, and think you are making a bit of a generalisation.
In Cambridge, we get a mixture of both. Some coaches he have the right attitude, I see eye to eye to, and arrange additional friendlies. Others I'd rather never play against again.
I've seen some appalling things that you wouldn't believe in my time coaching kids cricket. Opposition parents sledging kids on their own team until they cry and collapse in a break in the pitch. Umpires physically intervening to make a 10 year old stand outside legstump so it was easier for his bowler to bowl him. Coaches laughing and encouraging county u13 bowlers to bowl beamers into the throat of a 9 year old playing their first ever game of cricket who I had to carry off the pitch.
-
Must say this win at all costs, parents only care about winning, umpires should be harsh on kids rubbish would be the final straw for me and my kids participating in cricket.
Yes our league cricket is played hard but mainly within the rules but for kids it’s about having fun and enjoying the game. Our kids colts cricket isn’t like this and fortunately neither are the kids teams our club plays.
In this Instance in kids cricket I would ensure a warning was given to the batter and if he/she ignored that I would speak to the captain/coach to have a word and if they still did it fair enough. But in kids cricket we really should encourage more spirit of the game as it’s become lost with sat /Sunday’s players thinking and acting like it’s a professional end of the world kind of importance to win at all costs.
Your cracking down on the wrong thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with mankads, they are absolutely within the spirit of the game just as stumpings are. Crack down on sledging and obsession with personal scores over the team performance instead.
-
Must say this win at all costs, parents only care about winning, umpires should be harsh on kids rubbish would be the final straw for me and my kids participating in cricket.
Yes our league cricket is played hard but mainly within the rules but for kids it’s about having fun and enjoying the game. Our kids colts cricket isn’t like this and fortunately neither are the kids teams our club plays.
In this Instance in kids cricket I would ensure a warning was given to the batter and if he/she ignored that I would speak to the captain/coach to have a word and if they still did it fair enough. But in kids cricket we really should encourage more spirit of the game as it’s become lost with sat /Sunday’s players thinking and acting like it’s a professional end of the world kind of importance to win at all costs.
I entirely agree with this. Sensible umpiring resolves most issues without having to ruin the spirit of the game and encourage unsporting behaviour. I gave up any involvement with football because of the way the game has gone. It would be very sad if cricket was to continue down that path
-
Your cracking down on the wrong thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with mankads, they are absolutely within the spirit of the game just as stumpings are. Crack down on sledging and obsession with personal scores over the team performance instead.
This
Sledging, verbals and win at all costs are what needs eradicating.. not mankad which is actually the batsmen stealing yards in the name of ‘backing up’
Kids stuff has a mix of teams playing to give a good game and a load who simply want to batter teams and claim titles. They forget at amateur and kids level it means bugger all
-
Your cracking down on the wrong thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with mankads, they are absolutely within the spirit of the game just as stumpings are. Crack down on sledging and obsession with personal scores over the team performance instead.
There is absolutely everything wrong with mankads in kids cricket without a warning. There is in my opinion the same on adult cricket without a warning but I wouldn’t be as angry if it happened in an adults game as in a kids game. Mankad is not within the spirit of the game either. It’s no different to fake fielding, bowling a Beamer or running down the middle of the wicket which have been banned or have very strict rules in regards to them.
I don’t know what you mean with “personal scores” but I agree with sledging in the sense of personal abuse or foul laungage aimed at a person.
-
Vinoo Mankad of India ran out Bill Brown of Australia in this way, on the 13th December 1947, at the test match in Sydney. He had given Brown a warning for backing up too far in a previous match on the tour. You can imagine the reaction in the Aussie press, but Bradman was ok with it.
So no-one had tried it before Mankad? or was it not in the rules before this time?
-
There is absolutely everything wrong with mankads in kids cricket without a warning. There is in my opinion the same on adult cricket without a warning but I wouldn’t be as angry if it happened in an adults game as in a kids game. Mankad is not within the spirit of the game either. It’s no different to fake fielding, bowling a Beamer or running down the middle of the wicket which have been banned or have very strict rules in regards to them.
I don’t know what you mean with “personal scores” but I agree with sledging in the sense of personal abuse or foul laungage aimed at a person.
Do you feel the same about stumpings? What about the bowler tipping the ball onto the stumps to run out the non striker? If not, Why not. What's the difference, morally? Justify yourself, logically. Saying, it's convention, its tradition, its what I was taught etc is not good enough.
The mcc clarified this. A mankad is within both the spirit and the law and no different from a stumping. If you disagree, you're wrong, plain and simple.
-
So no-one had tried it before Mankad? or was it not in the rules before this time?
It had been done before, for sure, but this was the highest profile incident I guess, the most widely reported. I think it gained notoriety as there was no warning given in the match in question. He'd warned Brown in the earlier tour match, so just ran him out in the test match. But most viewers didn't know this of course, so called it out as unsporting.
-
in our league last year we had a number of instances of people trying to do a Mankad - even remember a fast bowler doing so when he was about to bowl when i was umpiring!
We had around 5-6 instances so it is on the increase.
One of which appealed without warning and was given. Thankfully common sense won the day (However after alot of words) and he was allowed to continue to bat.
I think it was highlighted in the umpires course pre season regards to the batsman gaining an unfair advantage so many bowlers were trying it as the league backed them
All very poor show in my opinion esp without a warning. And in kids cricket it should not be encouraged unless as a friendly warning to the batsman.
-
It had been done before, for sure, but this was the highest profile incident I guess, the most widely reported. I think it gained notoriety as there was no warning given in the match in question. He'd warned Brown in the earlier tour match, so just ran him out in the test match. But most viewers didn't know this of course, so called it out as unsporting.
And where is Mankad now?
Does he know we are still arguing passionately in his name? :)
-
My 2 cents, if its a practice game or a friendly then dont do it. Just warn the batsman. If its a league game or tournament game, u have every right to do it cause life aint fair. I would teach my kid the same.
-
Do you feel the same about stumpings? What about the bowler tipping the ball onto the stumps to run out the non striker? If not, Why not. What's the difference, morally? Justify yourself, logically. Saying, it's convention, its tradition, its what I was taught etc is not good enough.
The mcc clarified this. A mankad is within both the spirit and the law and no different from a stumping. If you disagree, you're wrong, plain and simple.
To me and in. My opinion the stumping is a legitimate dismissal and the Mankad isn’t purely on moral grounds without a warning. As i have said I think a warning should be given and then in kids cricket the coach should be spoken with by the umpire and the child spoken with again and if after this its still done then fine.
I have played for 20 years and played to a high level in premier league club and jnr county and never been ‘taught’ to Mankad or seen others taught this either.
This main topic was about what someone should do in kids cricket and in my honest opinion to many people are treating kids cricket as win at all costs instead of taking a look back and thinking how this should be handled
I’m not wrong i just have a different opinion from you which to be honest is the case with most of your posts and rants but hey you seem to do a lot of things differently in the Cambridge league area from what you say.
-
To me and in. My opinion the stumping is a legitimate dismissal and the Mankad isn’t purely on moral grounds without a warning. As i have said I think a warning should be given and then in kids cricket the coach should be spoken with by the umpire and the child spoken with again and if after this its still done then fine.
I have played for 20 years and played to a high level in premier league club and jnr county and never been ‘taught’ to Mankad or seen others taught this either.
This main topic was about what someone should do in kids cricket and in my honest opinion to many people are treating kids cricket as win at all costs instead of taking a look back and thinking how this should be handled
I’m not wrong i just have a different opinion from you which to be honest is the case with most of your posts and rants but hey you seem to do a lot of things differently in the Cambridge league area from what you say.
No, you're simply wrong. There's no two ways about it. You might as well claim that one-hand-one-bounce is a legitimate form of dismissal. The spirit of cricket is a matter of documented convention, and the mankad is EXPLICITLY documented as being WITHIN the spirit of the game. Kids cricket should be played within the spirit of the game, and thus it should include mankadding. If you don't like this, write an angry letter to the MCC. But until they change their minds, then you're wrong, and to remain within the spirit of cricket yourself, you need to respect and abide by our decision. If you don't want to, fine, leave cricket.
If an umpire attempted to "speak to" a kid about this in a game I was present at, I would make damn sure that umpire never darkened a cricket pitch again for the rest of his life.
-
If an umpire attempted to "speak to" a kid about this in a game I was present at, I would make damn sure that umpire never darkened a cricket pitch again for the rest of his life.
Of all the over reactions I have seen to a batsman being given out, my absolute favourite is always the complete nobody who tells an umpire he will see to it that he never umpires again
-
The MCC statement:
"It is often the bowler who is criticised for attempting such a run out but it is the batsman who is attempting to gain an advantage,
The message to the non-striker is very clear – if you do not want to risk being run out, stay within your ground until the bowler has released the ball."
Cricket Australia explicitly state that encouraging mankads is integral in teaching the correct spirit of cricket at the junior level:
Their statement:
"At a junior level, it's really easy to coach: From the time the bowler starts his run-up, if you take off, well you can just get run out. It's the definition of trying to play within the spirit of the game and if you don't, you can face the consequences."
-
Of all the over reactions I have seen to a batsman being given out, my absolute favourite is always the complete nobody who tells an umpire he will see to it that he never umpires again
Indeed, that is ridiculous.
But abusing and bullying children is not a laughing matter, and the county board would look extremely dimly on any umpire who, simply because of his personal prejudices, took it upon himself to publicly humiliate a child who has acted within the spirit of cricket. Its highly likely that umpire would be disbarred from future work within the sport.
-
No, you're simply wrong. There's no two ways about it. You might as well claim that one-hand-one-bounce is a legitimate form of dismissal. The spirit of cricket is a matter of documented convention, and the mankad is EXPLICITLY documented as being WITHIN the spirit of the game. Kids cricket should be played within the spirit of the game, and thus it should include mankadding. If you don't like this, write an angry letter to the MCC. But until they change their minds, then you're wrong, and to remain within the spirit of cricket yourself, you need to respect and abide by our decision. If you don't want to, fine, leave cricket.
If an umpire attempted to "speak to" a kid about this in a game I was present at, I would make damn sure that umpire never darkened a cricket pitch again for the rest of his life.
So someone is wrong for going with their morals and values? I wouldn't appeal for a timed out mode of dismissal, just because I don't think it's a good way to take a wicket. That's my view. You are supposed to appeal for every decision in order for an umpire to give it out - if someone chooses not to, that doesn't make them wrong. Starbucks/Amazon/Facebook weren't breaking any rules with their tax arrangements - however many would argue it is morally wrong. As I posted before, which you failed to comment on, Collingwood wasn't wrong according to the laws by continuing with the run out of Grant Elliot in an ODI in 2008 - however he said himself that in the heat of the moment, he made the wrong moral choice. Elliott was involved in an accidental collision with the bowler, knocking him over if you remember. So should the ICC have banned the umpires involved following their questioning of Collingwood if he wanted to continue with the appeal?
-
Clearly this thread demonstrates some differing opinions on something which is entirely within the laws. This thread proves this as fact, whether you agree with those who find it a sneaky dismissal or agree with those who follow the letter of the law. No matter of shouting and WRITING IN FULL CAPITALS can change some people see it differently.
It is very hard to find a comparison to anything else which is why it is so emotive perhaps. It really isn't the best comparison bit if you know you edge one but don't get given do you walk? To the letter of the law the umpire has the final say but it wouldn't sit with me at all to not walk. The laws of anything and what you see as fair and right or not always one and the same.
yes, this was the situation a few years back, and the fact that some people thought it was within the spirit and some didn't was clearly a problem. If only there was a guardian of the laws with the ability to issue a definitive statement to clear this mess up.
So the MCC took on the problem head first and issued a statement to put the arguments to bed once and for all: no matter what you previously believed, from now on the mankad is now officially WITHIN the spirit of cricket and should be encouraged and celebrated like any other form of dismissal. Anyone who denies this is now simply wrong, and should have the correct interpretation explained to them.
Ironically, incorrectly insisting that a perfectly fair and legitimate dismissal is "against the spirit of cricket" is itself a serious breach of the spirit of cricket.
-
So someone is wrong for going with their morals and values? I wouldn't appeal for a timed out mode of dismissal, just because I don't think it's a good way to take a wicket. That's my view. You are supposed to appeal for every decision in order for an umpire to give it out - if someone chooses not to, that doesn't make them wrong. Starbucks/Amazon/Facebook weren't breaking any rules with their tax arrangements - however many would argue it is morally wrong. As I posted before, which you failed to comment on, Collingwood wasn't wrong according to the laws by continuing with the run out of Grant Elliot in an ODI in 2008 - however he said himself that in the heat of the moment, he made the wrong moral choice. Elliott was involved in an accidental collision with the bowler, knocking him over if you remember. So should the ICC have banned the umpires involved following their questioning of Collingwood if he wanted to continue with the appeal?
If those "values" are wrong, then yes the person is wrong.
You might claim that its "morally wrong" for white cricketers and Asian cricketers to play on the same team, are we supposed to accept this?
You might claim that its "morally wrong" for the fielders to catch the balls that you keep hitting in the air, are we supposed to accept this?
You might claim that its "morally wrong" for the bowler to run you out after you backed up to far, are we supposed to accept this?
No they shouldn't be banned, because Collingwood isn't a child or vulnerable adult. But no, they shouldn't have intervened, either. "The major responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the captains", and they are the only people with the right to intervene.
-
No, you're simply wrong. There's no two ways about it. You might as well claim that one-hand-one-bounce is a legitimate form of dismissal. The spirit of cricket is a matter of documented convention, and the mankad is EXPLICITLY documented as being WITHIN the spirit of the game. Kids cricket should be played within the spirit of the game, and thus it should include mankadding. If you don't like this, write an angry letter to the MCC. But until they change their minds, then you're wrong, and to remain within the spirit of cricket yourself, you need to respect and abide by our decision. If you don't want to, fine, leave cricket.
If an umpire attempted to "speak to" a kid about this in a game I was present at, I would make damn sure that umpire never darkened a cricket pitch again for the rest of his life.
And this is why i would ensure that my children would not be associated with a club that has coaches like yourself and your pompous opinions and actions. Who the hell are you to say that an umpire would or shouldn’t be allowed to umpire because your opinion and thats all this boils down to is opinion has been questioned. I respect and abide by the decisions i make and my moral values not yours or even indeed the ECB or league. I would not support Mankad dismissal in any cricket personally.
As for your most stupid reference towards - white and Asian player being argued as morally wrong i have no idea what or why this is relevant to this argument.
-
Indeed, that is ridiculous.
But abusing and bullying children is not a laughing matter, and the county board would look extremely dimly on any umpire who, simply because of his personal prejudices, took it upon himself to publicly humiliate a child who has acted within the spirit of cricket. Its highly likely that umpire would be disbarred from future work within the sport.
Would a county board look dimly on an umpire who is trying to ensure that the spirit of cricket is upheld or some Moran who feels its his right to abuse and embarrass and umpire who is there own time to support cricket? I know which one i think is a worse offence but no doubt you will have some opinionated answer for this as well
-
I am saying "mankading" is against the way I like the game to be played. And I wouldn't do it without warning. If it happened to me, I wouldn't like it, but I'd have to just accept it happened, because I understand that it is a legitimate mode of dismissal.
Can I ask then, do you advocate the "timed out" dismissal. Do you advocate teaching kids this one as well - not just to be aware of it, but to use it?
-
Very simply, laws and morals are not the same thing. It isn't hard to understand. Nowhere did I type "spirit of cricket" whatever you want that to mean
If you Mankad someone and your captain withdraws the appeal do you berate him/ her too "insisting that a perfectly fair and legitimate dismissal is "against the spirit of cricket" is itself a serious breach of the spirit of cricket" and make sure they never captain or walk on a cricket pitch again as you would threaten an umpire? If you are don't follow your captain then you clearly don't follow your mantra of doing everything to the letter of the law... if you are happy to follow the letter of the law and support your captain then maybe we need to get them on the forum to talk you down from all these rants :D
No, because I am not a child or vulnerable adult.
It would really help these discussions if you actually read my previous posts more carefully.
-
And this is why i would ensure that my children would not be associated with a club that has coaches like yourself and your pompous opinions and actions. Who the hell are you to say that an umpire would or shouldn’t be allowed to umpire because your opinion and thats all this boils down to is opinion has been questioned. I respect and abide by the decisions i make and my moral values not yours or even indeed the ECB or league. I would not support Mankad dismissal in any cricket personally.
As for your most stupid reference towards - white and Asian player being argued as morally wrong i have no idea what or why this is relevant to this argument.
Nothing to do with my opinion, the spirit of cricket is defined by the MCC. If you don't want to mankad people, that's your decision, but the moment you describe other people's actions as being "immoral" or "agaisnt the spirit of cricket", that's the point you have crossed the line into abuse and require disciplining by your club. If the club refuses, then sanctions should be taken by the league against both the club and the individual.
Any coach or welfare officer should stand up for their junior members agaisnt a bullying and abusive adult, whether they're an umpire, opposition coach, player or spectator.
If you know of anyone who would be unwilling to do this, please report them to your county cricket board welfare officer immediately as they're not fit to be in their post.
-
Would a county board look dimly on an umpire who is trying to ensure that the spirit of cricket is upheld or some Moran who feels its his right to abuse and embarrass and umpire who is there own time to support cricket? I know which one i think is a worse offence but no doubt you will have some opinionated answer for this as well
Would a county board look dimly on an umpire who is trying to ensure that the spirit of cricket is upheld
Except they're not doing this, are they, because according to the MCC, the mankad is explicitly within the spirit of cricket and its not up to you to choose to ignore that and humiliate anyone who disagrees with your personal interpretation.
-
I am saying "mankading" is against the way I like the game to be played. And I wouldn't do it without warning. If it happened to me, I wouldn't like it, but I'd have to just accept it happened, because I understand that it is a legitimate mode of dismissal.
Can I ask then, do you advocate the "timed out" dismissal. Do you advocate teaching kids this one as well - not just to be aware of it, but to use it?
That's fine, lbw is "against the way I like the game to be played", therefore I never appeal for it, I refuse to walk when given out lbw, and I abuse anyone who appeals for an lbw and accuse them of being cheats and immoral cowards.
Oh wait, look how idiotic it is to claim that something within the laws of the game is against the spirit of the game.
What if it was the last ball of the game, the scores were tied, and as you begin your run up, the no-striker simply runs down to the other end?
-
And this is why i would ensure that my children would not be associated with a club that has coaches like yourself and your pompous opinions and actions. Who the hell are you to say that an umpire would or shouldn’t be allowed to umpire because your opinion and thats all this boils down to is opinion has been questioned. I respect and abide by the decisions i make and my moral values not yours or even indeed the ECB or league. I would not support Mankad dismissal in any cricket personally.
As for your most stupid reference towards - white and Asian player being argued as morally wrong i have no idea what or why this is relevant to this argument.
Ditto. I am glad that the majority of those involved in junior cricket don't behave in this sort of way. A couple of years ago one of the clubs in a junior league we enter had a coach with this sort if attitude. At the end of the season there was a consensus from the other sides that they would simply concede each game against this club because they didn't want their juniors exposed to this sort of person and the behaviour he encouraged. Thankfully the club in question had also had enough of the individual in question and asked him not to come back the following season
-
That's fine, lbw is "against the way I like the game to be played", therefore I never appeal for it, I refuse to walk when given out lbw, and I abuse anyone who appeals for an lbw and accuse them of being cheats and immoral cowards.
Oh wait, look how idiotic it is to claim that something within the laws of the game is against the spirit of the game.
What if it was the last ball of the game, the scores were tied, and as you begin your run up, the no-striker simply runs down to the other end?
You don't have to appeal for an LBW do you - so if you don't appeal, there is no decision for the umpire to make. So if morally I don't like LBW, i don't appeal. But that's my choice! And once given out, you have to walk off as the umpire has given you out - it's dissent otherwise and the batter should face a ban. And no, if someone abuses others for appealing for an LBW, then they should get a ban.
If it were the last ball of the game - I'd stop my run up, probably warn him, let the umpire call dead ball, start again.
I'll assume you are just a massive wind up merchant SLA and leave it at that.
-
You don't have to appeal for an LBW do you - so if you don't appeal, there is no decision for the umpire to make. So if morally I don't like LBW, i don't appeal. But that's my choice! And once given out, you have to walk off as the umpire has given you out - it's dissent otherwise and the batter should face a ban. And no, if someone abuses others for appealing for an LBW, then they should get a ban.
If it were the last ball of the game - I'd stop my run up, probably warn him, let the umpire call dead ball, start again.
I'll assume you are just a massive wind up merchant SLA and leave it at that.
But others here have argued in favour of abusing opponents who abide by the spirit of the law. One even argued that they had the right to bully, abuse and humiliate children who abided by the spirit of cricket.
Will you join me in condemning this abuse?
-
Any abuse on the cricket field is wrong - and to be honest, umpires need to be tougher on it - our panel umpires are at times too lenient.
-
You don't have to appeal for an LBW do you - so if you don't appeal, there is no decision for the umpire to make. So if morally I don't like LBW, i don't appeal. But that's my choice! And once given out, you have to walk off as the umpire has given you out - it's dissent otherwise and the batter should face a ban. And no, if someone abuses others for appealing for an LBW, then they should get a ban.
If it were the last ball of the game - I'd stop my run up, probably warn him, let the umpire call dead ball, start again.
I'll assume you are just a massive wind up merchant SLA and leave it at that.
What about orcastrated appealing?? Square leg\point/fine leg all going up.. umm, how do they know?
Appealing every time it hits the pads ?
Many things are not in the spirit and yet are done as they re seen for some reason as ‘part of the game’
Sledging is again something discussed a lot and yet you always get some saying it’s ok, it’s part of the game.. yet, you could say it’s against the spirit to direct any verbals at, to or about an oppo .. in essence, that’s literally all verbals then
Ps, 95% of kids should be told not to leave their crease and then the coach told. Depending on the reaction depends what happens. If you have cocky kids or win at all costs kids/parents/coach.. run em out and don’t play them again.
-
Any abuse on the cricket field is wrong - and to be honest, umpires need to be tougher on it - our panel umpires are at times too lenient.
Ironically, in junior cricket its often the umpires that are the problem. They're either the coach of one team, a parent, both of whom suffer from over-competitiveness issues, or some miserable old duffer who thinks Britain has gone to the dogs and anyone under the age of 45 is a degenerate. Soulman sounds like this kind of umpire.
-
What about orcastrated appealing?? Square leg\point/fine leg all going up.. umm, how do they know?
Appealing every time it hits the pads ?
Many things are not in the spirit and yet are done as they re seen for some reason as ‘part of the game’
Sledging is again something discussed a lot and yet you always get some saying it’s ok, it’s part of the game.. yet, you could say it’s against the spirit to direct any verbals at, to or about an oppo .. in essence, that’s literally all verbals then
Ps, 95% of kids should be told not to leave their crease and then the coach told. Depending on the reaction depends what happens. If you have cocky kids or win at all costs kids/parents/coach.. run em out and don’t play them again.
Never have this problem in baseball - its fine for the runner to try to steal a yard, its fine to the pitcher to try to pick him off. Its a fair contest of skill and concentration, no-one feels the need to makes a moral dilemma out of it.
Why can't cricket be like this? Why is there always some (No Swearing Please) who wants to impose his own ludicrous and arbitrary moral code on everyone else? Does it help him sleep at night to feel that by abusing some poor kid he's just publicly humiliated, he's upheld some kind of universal justice?
-
What about orcastrated appealing?? Square leg\point/fine leg all going up.. umm, how do they know?
Appealing every time it hits the pads ?
Many things are not in the spirit and yet are done as they re seen for some reason as ‘part of the game’
Sledging is again something discussed a lot and yet you always get some saying it’s ok, it’s part of the game.. yet, you could say it’s against the spirit to direct any verbals at, to or about an oppo .. in essence, that’s literally all verbals then
Ps, 95% of kids should be told not to leave their crease and then the coach told. Depending on the reaction depends what happens. If you have cocky kids or win at all costs kids/parents/coach.. run em out and don’t play them again.
And I don't agree with any of that either to be honest - end of the day if I'm captaining a team and they do something I deem contrary to how I view the game should be played, I tell them to pack it in. Think there needs to be better self policing in amateur cricket to be honest, not just leave it to the umpires.
100% of kids should be told to not leave your ground - I was taught to start walking as the bowler prepared to deliver the ball, but to keep my bat behind the line - however kids will get it wrong at times, not deliberately. yes you could go down the route of running them out to teach them a lesson - but that's more likely to put them off playing I think rather than learning from their mistake.
-
And I don't agree with any of that either to be honest - end of the day if I'm captaining a team and they do something I deem contrary to how I view the game should be played, I tell them to pack it in. Think there needs to be better self policing in amateur cricket to be honest, not just leave it to the umpires.
100% of kids should be told to not leave your ground - I was taught to start walking as the bowler prepared to deliver the ball, but to keep my bat behind the line - however kids will get it wrong at times, not deliberately. yes you could go down the route of running them out to teach them a lesson - but that's more likely to put them off playing I think rather than learning from their mistake.
Same argument applies to stumpings though. If you're willing to admit that as long as everyone understands in advance what's going on, then there is no real moral difference between mankads and stumpings, then we're in agreement.
-
And I don't agree with any of that either to be honest - end of the day if I'm captaining a team and they do something I deem contrary to how I view the game should be played, I tell them to pack it in. Think there needs to be better self policing in amateur cricket to be honest, not just leave it to the umpires.
100% of kids should be told to not leave your ground - I was taught to start walking as the bowler prepared to deliver the ball, but to keep my bat behind the line - however kids will get it wrong at times, not deliberately. yes you could go down the route of running them out to teach them a lesson - but that's more likely to put them off playing I think rather than learning from their mistake.
Self policing doesn’t work, hence the standard of behaviour is so poor now
Policing onkh works if umpires are strong, willing to report players without exception and the league back them up with harsh punishments..
Clubs will only sort it out when they lose players to bans for weeks.. capt will only policemit when they lose players and get banned themselves.
Umpires talk pre season about doing it but never follow through
-
Same argument applies to stumpings though. If you're willing to admit that as long as everyone understands in advance what's going on, then there is no real moral difference between mankads and stumpings, then we're in agreement.
I can't agree with that - with a stumping you're not deceiving anyone, with a "mankad" you're feigning that you are going to bowl the ball. You run/walk in, gather to deliver the ball, can now even get into delivery stride, then whip the bails off. People don't do it half way through the run up and throw the stumps down.
As you are a qualified umpire can you answer this. on strike batsman takes his stance, outside the crease, keeper standing back. Bowler runs in, doesn't let go of the ball, just keeps running down the wicket, takes the bails off at the strikers end. Is that run out? If not, why not?
So to conclude, we can't agree on this one.
-
And I don't agree with any of that either to be honest - end of the day if I'm captaining a team and they do something I deem contrary to how I view the game should be played, I tell them to pack it in. Think there needs to be better self policing in amateur cricket to be honest, not just leave it to the umpires.
100% of kids should be told to not leave your ground - I was taught to start walking as the bowler prepared to deliver the ball, but to keep my bat behind the line - however kids will get it wrong at times, not deliberately. yes you could go down the route of running them out to teach them a lesson - but that's more likely to put them off playing I think rather than learning from their mistake.
You can tell when players are stealing yards or intentionally ‘backing up’. Very different to a dreaming kid who wanders out...
-
I can't agree with that - with a stumping you're not deceiving anyone, with a "mankad" you're feigning that you are going to bowl the ball. You run/walk in, gather to deliver the ball, can now even get into delivery stride, then whip the bails off. People don't do it half way through the run up and throw the stumps down.
There is no deceit in a mankad. The laws dictate the non-striker must be within the crease up until the point the ball is released, if they're not they can be run out.
How is there deceit when it's a written law of the game?
You're only claiming it's deceitful because it doesn't follow how you expect a game or delivery should go. But an unusual incident does not equal deceit.
-
Self policing doesn’t work, hence the standard of behaviour is so poor now
Policing onkh works if umpires are strong, willing to report players without exception and the league back them up with harsh punishments..
Clubs will only sort it out when they lose players to bans for weeks.. capt will only policemit when they lose players and get banned themselves.
Umpires talk pre season about doing it but never follow through
The line of authority goes from league -> club committee -> captain-> player.
If the player steps out of line, the club disciplines him, if the club steps out of line (including failing to control its players), then the league disciplines the club. The captain is obviously at the front line in controlling his players, if he can't do that, the committee need to find someone who can.
The problem is that leagues don't do enough to bring sanctions agaisnt clubs. If they did, then clubs would crack down on their players's behaviour.
Umpires are a red herring, 90% of amateur games are played without independent umpires. If there are umpires, great, they should report every instance of poor sportsmanship they see. But in most cases it has to be the clubs themselves who do the reporting to the league.
-
I can't agree with that - with a stumping you're not deceiving anyone, with a "mankad" you're feigning that you are going to bowl the ball. You run/walk in, gather to deliver the ball, can now even get into delivery stride, then whip the bails off. People don't do it half way through the run up and throw the stumps down.
As you are a qualified umpire can you answer this. on strike batsman takes his stance, outside the crease, keeper standing back. Bowler runs in, doesn't let go of the ball, just keeps running down the wicket, takes the bails off at the strikers end. Is that run out? If not, why not?
So to conclude, we can't agree on this one.
Like most things.. cricket relises on each player playing to the spirit of cricket for it to work. We know not everyone does and so everything is now open season. Can’t blame anyone for getting annoyed with players backing up too far (they get told to, see it on t), can’t blame over appealing as it’s what they are taught, see on tv.. can’t blame a player for sledging as they see it, hear it, suffer it and see stokes gobbing off so again, think it’s fine.
Umpires and leagues are the only ones who can solve it by being strong and handing out bans until players learn
-
The line of authority goes from league -> club committee -> captain-> player.
If the player steps out of line, the club disciplines him, if the club steps out of line (including failing to control its players), then the league disciplines the club. The captain is obviously at the front line in controlling his players, if he can't do that, the committee need to find someone who can.
The problem is that leagues don't do enough to bring sanctions agaisnt clubs. If they did, then clubs would crack down on their players's behaviour.
Umpires are a red herring, 90% of amateur games are played without independent umpires. If there are umpires, great, they should report every instance of poor sportsmanship they see. But in most cases it has to be the clubs themselves who do the reporting to the league.
Umpires reporting it, leagues not caving in to appeals and handing down increasingly harsh bans is the only way. This will then filter down thesystem as players learn. If someone is constantly getting banned for pushing it then tbf, game is better without them as they are probably putting players off (outside of their team mates who probably find it amusing)
-
There is no deceit in a mankad. The laws dictate the non-striker must be within the crease up until the point the ball is released, if they're not they can be run out.
How is there deceit when it's a written law of the game?
You're only claiming it's deceitful because it doesn't follow how you expect a game or delivery should go. But an unusual incident does not equal deceit.
So Tom, in 2 of the clips that were in the start of this thread, the bowlers did not run in with the intention of bowling, especially the Hong Kong one - he brings his arm over, holds on to the ball and throws the stumps down. If that's not deception, like the dummy slide/pick up, which has now been classed as unfair play, then I don't know what is. It's like a keeper taking the ball but acting like he's missed it, seeing the batsman move and whipping the bails off.
-
I can't agree with that - with a stumping you're not deceiving anyone, with a "mankad" you're feigning that you are going to bowl the ball. You run/walk in, gather to deliver the ball, can now even get into delivery stride, then whip the bails off. People don't do it half way through the run up and throw the stumps down.
As you are a qualified umpire can you answer this. on strike batsman takes his stance, outside the crease, keeper standing back. Bowler runs in, doesn't let go of the ball, just keeps running down the wicket, takes the bails off at the strikers end. Is that run out? If not, why not?
So to conclude, we can't agree on this one.
Not sure whether it would be a dead ball or not without looking it up. But in the case of a bowler throwing the ball at the stumps, then yes that would be run out. He could take 2 steps of his run up, stop and throw down the stumps at either end, and it would legitimately be out. (it would also be a no ball)
If you don't like to see deliberate deception in cricket, you must really hate spin bowlers.
If its the deception that is the problem I assume you're 100% fine with the famous Keemo Paul run out then? No deception at all there.
-
So Tom, in 2 of the clips that were in the start of this thread, the bowlers did not run in with the intention of bowling, especially the Hong Kong one - he brings his arm over, holds on to the ball and throws the stumps down. If that's not deception, like the dummy slide/pick up, which has now been classed as unfair play, then I don't know what is. It's like a keeper taking the ball but acting like he's missed it, seeing the batsman move and whipping the bails off.
All negated if the batter isn’t leaving his crease 🙈
-
Not sure whether it would be a dead ball or not without looking it up. But in the case of a bowler throwing the ball at the stumps, then yes that would be run out. He could take 2 steps of his run up, stop and throw down the stumps at either end, and it would legitimately be out. (it would also be a no ball)
If you don't like to see deliberate deception in cricket, you must really hate spin bowlers.
If its the deception that is the problem I assume you're 100% fine with the famous Keemo Paul run out then? No deception at all there.
I'm not fine with it, it's just not as bad as the HK one, in my opinion, which differs to yours.
-
All negated if the batter isn’t leaving his crease 🙈
So you think turning your arm over, not letting go of it, following through the action, turning around, throwing down the stumps - is ok? you and your team mates would be ok with it if it happened to them? It wouldn't kick off? If that happened in any league match I played in, there would be uproar, no matter if by strict interpretation, it's allowed.
-
So Tom, in 2 of the clips that were in the start of this thread, the bowlers did not run in with the intention of bowling, especially the Hong Kong one - he brings his arm over, holds on to the ball and throws the stumps down. If that's not deception, like the dummy slide/pick up, which has now been classed as unfair play, then I don't know what is. It's like a keeper taking the ball but acting like he's missed it, seeing the batsman move and whipping the bails off.
I somewhat agree with you on that example and would argue that in that example the bowler had gone past the moment they 'would be expected to deliver the ball' and therefore shouldn't be out.
-
So you think turning your arm over, not letting go of it, following through the action, turning around, throwing down the stumps - is ok? you and your team mates would be ok with it if it happened to them? It wouldn't kick off? If that happened in any league match I played in, there would be uproar, no matter if by strict interpretation, it's allowed.
As it happens in this specific case no
But
Watching batsmen after batsmen leave their crease means that now, it’s probably time to punish it. Backing up is fine but simply don’t leave your crease.. stay alert just in case or even leave a split second later rather than pushing it
Again, onus on the batsmen not to be trying to steal yards
-
There is no deceit in a mankad. The laws dictate the non-striker must be within the crease up until the point the ball is released, if they're not they can be run out.
Technically, the law doesn't say they can't or shouldn't leave their crease, it just says that if they do so, they're liable to be run out by the bowler (no warning necessary). Its morally fine for the non-striker to leave early, its also morally fine for the bowler to run them out without a warning. There's no need to bring morality into it at all.
"If the non-striker is out of his/her 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 him/her out"
-
So you think turning your arm over, not letting go of it, following through the action, turning around, throwing down the stumps - is ok? you and your team mates would be ok with it if it happened to them? It wouldn't kick off? If that happened in any league match I played in, there would be uproar, no matter if by strict interpretation, it's allowed.
I think if the bowler did that, I'd expect the umpire to call dead ball and say "not out".
In fact I've had a bowler do this (very aggressively) whilst I was backing up, and both me and the umpire laughed at him.
-
I think if the bowler did that, I'd expect the umpire to call dead ball and say "not out".
In fact I've had a bowler do this (very aggressively) whilst I was backing up, and both me and the umpire laughed at him.
Why would he call dead ball, it's allowed according to what you've been quoting, so should be given out.
-
Why would he call dead ball, it's allowed according to what you've been quoting, so should be given out.
"If the non-striker is out of his/her 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 him/her out"
They have to have the bails off BEFORE the moment they would normally have been expected to release the ball. Obviously if they go through their bowling action, that point has passed. In fact, given that it takes about half a second to spin round and get the ball down to the stumps, realistically the bowler has missed his chance by the time his arm comes above his shoulder.
and yes, this does mean that by the letter of the law some of those umpiring decisions in the clips at the start of the thread are just plain wrong.
-
Ironically, in junior cricket its often the umpires that are the problem. They're either the coach of one team, a parent, both of whom suffer from over-competitiveness issues, or some miserable old duffer who thinks Britain has gone to the dogs and anyone under the age of 45 is a degenerate. Soulman sounds like this kind of umpire.
I am neither a parent of any of our jnr players as mine are to young, i certainly don’t suffer over competitiveness, am very proud to be British and am well under the age of 45. I am however I seasoned cricketer, and simply don’t agree with your views or the fact you don’t listen to anyone’s views and force yours on to others and when they disagree acccuse them of being wrong or in some way stupid.
I will end this conversation with you and others with your views as your are entitled to those views as are others but once again the forum is following foul to people who do not wish to accept to listen to others views, and abuse or put down anyone who dares to do so.
There was another forum member much like yourself a few years back, i wonder if your related!!!
-
And where is Mankad now?
Does he know we are still arguing passionately in his name? :)
Mankad died in 1978. Considering the volume of the debate in here over the past 24 hours, if he thought he'd been forgotten he's probably woken up to it again now.
-
I am neither a parent of any of our jnr players as mine are to young, i certainly don’t suffer over competitiveness, am very proud to be British and am well under the age of 45. I am however I seasoned cricketer, and simply don’t agree with your views or the fact you don’t listen to anyone’s views and force yours on to others and when they disagree acccuse them of being wrong or in some way stupid.
I will end this conversation with you and others with your views as your are entitled to those views as are others but once again the forum is following foul to people who do not wish to accept to listen to others views, and abuse or put down anyone who dares to do so.
There was another forum member much like yourself a few years back, i wonder if your related!!!
Lol, the hypocrisy. This argument is literally me saying "you don't have the right to impose your personal opinion as to the morality of mankading onto other players" vs you saying "yes I do".
-
Well it's good to see this has stayed civil...
So you think turning your arm over, not letting go of it, following through the action, turning around, throwing down the stumps - is ok? you and your team mates would be ok with it if it happened to them? It wouldn't kick off? If that happened in any league match I played in, there would be uproar, no matter if by strict interpretation, it's allowed.
That would be not out. If you pretend to bowl and don't let go of it, it's dead ball and you can't run batsmen out. There's no possible deception, the laws are quite clear on that.
I honestly don't get it... not that I mankad people all the time, but can anyone actually explain why it's against the spirit/wrong/morally dubious/anything else it's been called on here? A batsman can only be out if he's not in his crease when he should be, same as every other type of runout. At absolute worst the bowler is taking advantage of someone being dozy, which fair enough isn't the friendliest way to carry on but there's hardly anything you can complain about.
-
We may not have have the Ashes if it wasn't for WG Grace running out Sammy Jones in the only test the 1882 tour so we can at least ascribe one good thing that poor sportsmanship - and an act that was entirely within the laws of the game - has given us. Otherwise, the problem with the spirit of the game is that it means different things to different people.
-
Well it's good to see this has stayed civil...
That would be not out. If you pretend to bowl and don't let go of it, it's dead ball and you can't run batsmen out. There's no possible deception, the laws are quite clear on that.
I honestly don't get it... not that I mankad people all the time, but can anyone actually explain why it's against the spirit/wrong/morally dubious/anything else it's been called on here? A batsman can only be out if he's not in his crease when he should be, same as every other type of runout. At absolute worst the bowler is taking advantage of someone being dozy, which fair enough isn't the friendliest way to carry on but there's hardly anything you can complain about.
So why the uproar about the Trevor Chappell incident? That was done within the laws of the game but was widely condemned at the time and still is today.
-
We had this early last season in a T20 game, bowler ran out our non striker fairly according to the new wording
Umpire looked around the field to ask if the skipper wished to uphold the appeal to which the bowler replied - I am the skipper and hes out! We could tell that the umpire wasnt comfortable with it but had to give it out according to the laws
Interestingly the strongest protester was our Overseas player who I had to physically restrain at change of innings whilst he repeatedly shouted that the bowler was a crap bloke! Was all fairly comical really
For me the phrase 'spirit of cricket' just blurs the lines between legal and illegal. Im happy to play according to the laws of the game, dont think you can pick and choose which you follow and which you ignore
-
So why the uproar about the Trevor Chappell incident? That was done within the laws of the game but was widely condemned at the time and still is today.
The point is that its fundamentally unworkable to have something that is within the laws but outside of the spirit. It needs to be either both or neither. So any such examples have to be either made illegal in the laws, or agreed by everyone to be perfectly fair and acceptable and within the spirit.
In the Chappell incident, we went one way, and changed the law so that rolling the ball was a no-ball; in the Mankad incident, we've gone in the other direction, and clarified that yes Mankadding is definitely within both the laws and the spirit so non-strikers should stop whining and start paying attention.
Of course, there are still a few old bigots who refuse to accept the official consensus view (although they're unable to make a coherent case as to why not), but we just have to ignore them, they'll all be dead soon anyway. They're just the modern-day equivalent of the old bluffers who wanted the googly banned, or who thought hitting the ball through the leg side was a sign of moral turpitude.
-
A lot of people on this thread have been talking about the Spirit of Cricket in one form or another, so I thought I would actually put on here what it is in terms of in the MCC Laws - Preamble.
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/preamble-to-the-laws-spirit-of-cricket (https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/preamble-to-the-laws-spirit-of-cricket)
"Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket.
The major responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the captains, but extends to all players, umpires and, especially in junior cricket, teachers, coaches and parents.
Respect is central to the Spirit of Cricket.
Respect your captain, team-mates, opponents and the authority of the umpires.
Play hard and play fair.
Accept the umpire’s decision.
Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise.
Show self-discipline, even when things go against you.
Congratulate the opposition on their successes, and enjoy those of your own team.
Thank the officials and your opposition at the end of the match, whatever the result.
Cricket is an exciting game that encourages leadership, friendship and teamwork, which brings together people from different nationalities, cultures and religions, especially when played within the Spirit of Cricket."
-
Crikey, a lot of posts on this!
I remember an incident many many moons ago
A crucial cup game , the oppos we’re backing up stupidly and warned many times, but our captain who was bowling, eventually removed the bails.
This caused a huge controversy at the time, the team we were playing had a large crowd of several hundred spectators who ere pretty vocal, as were the team we were playing
The big thing tho, was our own team,,,this literally split the team, and the club eventually fell apart because of that one decision.
It really does put into question the spirit of the game in a lot of people’s minds
-
Crikey, a lot of posts on this!
I remember an incident many many moons ago
A crucial cup game , the oppos we’re backing up stupidly and warned many times, but our captain who was bowling, eventually removed the bails.
This caused a huge controversy at the time, the team we were playing had a large crowd of several hundred spectators who ere pretty vocal, as were the team we were playing
The big thing tho, was our own team,,,this literally split the team, and the club eventually fell apart because of that one decision.
It really does put into question the spirit of the game in a lot of people’s minds
Hence the need for complete clarity and a definitive answer to prevent these arguments ever happening again. Helpfully, the MCC have provided one, the matter is settled once and for all, so we can all stop arguing and move on.
-
"Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket"
What is clear is that the Spirit of Cricket means different things to different people. Which is fine, I have no issue with people that play the game differently to me - that's their choice - but if someone wants to be an abusive sledger on the field, constantly appealing from square leg, insists on carrying through with a mankad or timed out dismissal, I won't be having a chat and a beer with them after.
I look forward to numerous tales of Mankad dismissals throughout the season, via this forum.
And this coming from someone that's just turned 40, not a bigot and have no intentions of leaving this planet anytime soon.
-
Hence the need for complete clarity and a definitive answer to prevent these arguments ever happening again. Helpfully, the MCC have provided one, the matter is settled once and for all, so we can all stop arguing and move on.
Can I just ask SLA, you keep on referencing the MCC providing a specific statement about the mankadd and its relationship to the spirit of cricket. Do you mind sharing it please because I can't find it anywhere and am interested what it says.
-
Spirit of Cricket clearly does mean different things to different people, but I'm still surprised that this one is even up for debate.
A mankad punishes cheating (stealing yards), cheating is quite clearly against the spirit of cricket, so how is the one preventing that cheating in the wrong?
-
Can I just ask SLA, you keep on referencing the MCC providing a specific statement about the mankadd and its relationship to the spirit of cricket. Do you mind sharing it please because I can't find it anywhere and am interested what it says.
The MCC website has recently been updated so the statement has gone missing. But you can find it linked here:
https://www.facebook.com/icc/posts/1776520389033716 (https://www.facebook.com/icc/posts/1776520389033716)
The title of the blog post at the time was "Not against the law, not against the spirit"
-
Can I just ask SLA, you keep on referencing the MCC providing a specific statement about the mankadd and its relationship to the spirit of cricket. Do you mind sharing it please because I can't find it anywhere and am interested what it says.
As Tom says, the actual press release "not against the laws, not against the spirit" has disappeared.
however, I found this in an online article: the MCC statement:
"It is often the bowler who is criticised for attempting such a run out but it is the batsman who is attempting to gain an advantage,
The message to the non-striker is very clear – if you do not want to risk being run out, stay within your ground until the bowler has released the ball."
and for the record, seeing as this is what this thread was originally about, Cricket Australia explicitly state that encouraging mankads is integral in teaching the correct spirit of cricket at the junior level:
Their statement:
"At a junior level, it's really easy to coach: From the time the bowler starts his run-up, if you take off, well you can just get run out. It's the definition of trying to play within the spirit of the game and if you don't, you can face the consequences."
-
I dont think quoting Cricket Australia in a debate about the spirit of cricket will nessecarily support your case
-
What I most like about this debate is how it has evolved from being a discussion about the pro's and con's of the Mankad, to being a philosophical debate on our opinions of the 'Spirit of the Game'. As I've said, I'm not against the Mankad, but I was taught that a warning should be issued first. This has stuck with me, and I guess always will, for others it is a fairly straightforward issue of law breaking being punished. Each to their own.
The bigger issue is the Spirit of the Game, its importance to cricket and to sport in general. I play league cricket yes, but at Sunday 2s level. It is a fairly gentle mix of youth and experience, where older guys like me try to help the kids make their way in the game. So yeah, I recommend a warning first, just as I would warn a young bowler about near-overstepping, running on the pitch and even bowling full pitch above waist height. I know there are laws, but there are ways that they can be finessed at the level I play.
I also encourage players to be fair, and to comport themselves as gentlemen or ladies should. I walk, and I applaud others who walk. I may offer an apology to the bowler, or at least a rueful smile, if I nick one through or over slip for 4. If a youngster is clearly throwing, I have a chat to the captain rather than no-ball him. I speak up against sledging, aggression or bad language, I clap for opposition 50's, tons or fifers. In a similar way, I would apologise to my opponent for winning a point in tennis with a net-cord, or for making a horrible fluke in snooker.
Sport isn't war. There's nothing wrong with winning, but it has to be about playing the game too. Kids can learn a lot from sport about how to conduct themselves, and how to lose gracefully. I always thought that there's 2 types of people, those who've played team sport, and those who haven't. Personally, I think that sport as metaphor for life is something that should be understood, and supported.
-
What I most like about this debate is how it has evolved from being a discussion about the pro's and con's of the Mankad, to being a philosophical debate on our opinions of the 'Spirit of the Game'. As I've said, I'm not against the Mankad, but I was taught that a warning should be issued first. This has stuck with me, and I guess always will, for others it is a fairly straightforward issue of law breaking being punished. Each to their own.
The bigger issue is the Spirit of the Game, its importance to cricket and to sport in general. I play league cricket yes, but at Sunday 2s level. It is a fairly gentle mix of youth and experience, where older guys like me try to help the kids make their way in the game. So yeah, I recommend a warning first, just as I would warn a young bowler about near-overstepping, running on the pitch and even bowling full pitch above waist height. I know there are laws, but there are ways that they can be finessed at the level I play.
I also encourage players to be fair, and to comport themselves as gentlemen or ladies should. I walk, and I applaud others who walk. I may offer an apology to the bowler, or at least a rueful smile, if I nick one through or over slip for 4. If a youngster is clearly throwing, I have a chat to the captain rather than no-ball him. I speak up against sledging, aggression or bad language, I clap for opposition 50's, tons or fifers. In a similar way, I would apologise to my opponent for winning a point in tennis with a net-cord, or for making a horrible fluke in snooker.
Sport isn't war. There's nothing wrong with winning, but it has to be about playing the game too. Kids can learn a lot from sport about how to conduct themselves, and how to lose gracefully. I always thought that there's 2 types of people, those who've played team sport, and those who haven't. Personally, I think that sport as metaphor for life is something that should be understood, and supported.
Well yeah, I do all those things too, and I'm sure most players do, but isn't contradictory with the stance that a mankad is no different from a stumping or from running a batsman out who hasn't grounded his bat behind the line in normal play. Its just another perfectly fair and valid way to catch out a dozy batsman and gain a wicket. Cricket is a game of concentration, if you lose your concentration, you lose your wicket.
Would I mankad a 13 year old in a friendly game? No, not even with a warning. I wouldn't stump one either, and I probably wouldn't appeal for an lbw.
Would I encourage one 13 year old to mankad another 13 year old in an U13s league fixture with no warning required? Definitely - its a league game, they need to learn what is and isn't acceptable, and if we want to get rid of this daft old-fashioned idea that a mankad is somehow unsporting (which we do!), now is a good time to teach that lesson.
-
This is getting worse than Brexit.
-
Spirit of Cricket clearly does mean different things to different people, but I'm still surprised that this one is even up for debate.
A mankad punishes cheating (stealing yards), cheating is quite clearly against the spirit of cricket, so how is the one preventing that cheating in the wrong?
What about those instances in the videos at the start of this thread? Those batsman clearly aren't stealing extra yards, they are backing up as normal but have been caught out by a bowler who has run in with the intent of Mankading them. In those cases, had the ball been delivered as normal, they would have been in their crease at the point of release. However, by holding the action back, the batsman is fractionally out of his crease when the bowler takes the stumps.
Whether you find a bowler intentionally running in with the intent to pull out of his action at the point he enters his delivery stride in the hope of deceiving the non striker to be a legitimate tactic or not is a obviously a personal call.
-
I think that's a great post JK, and there's definitely room for nuance in the debate. The reality with a Mankad is it's something I'd only be able to do if I saw a player stealing yards (and I was sure of it) on more than one occasion - I'd need to run up to bowl with the idea preconceived in my head, keeping an eye on the non-striker shifting my focus away from actually bowling. And because of that I see why people give warnings, in the same way as a keeper I'd say "You were lucky there" if I fumbled a ball when the ball came through and they were caught napping just outside their ground.
-
What about those instances in the videos at the start of this thread? Those batsman clearly aren't stealing extra yards, they are backing up as normal but have been caught out by a bowler who has run in with the intent of Mankading them. In those cases, had the ball been delivered as normal, they would have been in their crease at the point of release. However, by holding the action back, the batsman is fractionally out of his crease when the bowler takes the stumps.
Whether you find a bowler intentionally running in with the intent to pull out of his action at the point he enters his delivery stride in the hope of deceiving the non striker to be a legitimate tactic or not is a obviously a personal call.
I think you have to run in with the intention (or at least consideration) to mankade, so I would be interested to see what had gone in the balls/overs prior (in terms of stealing yards) before making a moral judgement.
-
What about those instances in the videos at the start of this thread? Those batsman clearly aren't stealing extra yards, they are backing up as normal but have been caught out by a bowler who has run in with the intent of Mankading them. In those cases, had the ball been delivered as normal, they would have been in their crease at the point of release. However, by holding the action back, the batsman is fractionally out of his crease when the bowler takes the stumps.
Whether you find a bowler intentionally running in with the intent to pull out of his action at the point he enters his delivery stride in the hope of deceiving the non striker to be a legitimate tactic or not is a obviously a personal call.
To me, backing up "as normal" means keeping my bat behind the line until the bowler has committed to the action (and can no longer legally run me out) and then taking 3-4 quick steps down the wicket.
If you leave earlier than this, then you are knowingly taking the risk of being run out and you deserve everything you get.
having said that, some of those umpiring decisions are flat out wrong. The Oman vs Hong Kong one is an appalling decision. The ball was dead long before the bowler turns and throws it at the stumps.
-
I recommend a warning first, just as I would warn a young bowler about near-overstepping, running on the pitch and even bowling full pitch above waist height.
This was a very interesting law change last year. At the pre-season captains meeting a lot of captains expressed concern about the rather draconian one warning and then you are off law particularly when it came to junior players who may lack control but who weren't posing a danger to anyone.
Thankfully common sense prevailed in the games I played in and umpires didn't remove young players from the attack when beamers were clearly inadvertent and weren't a threat to the safety of the batsmen. I am glad that the MCC recognised that the got this one badly wrong last year and have adopted this year the approach that umpires were following last year and using their discretion to decide what is dangerous
-
For me the phrase 'spirit of cricket' just blurs the lines between legal and illegal. Im happy to play according to the laws of the game, dont think you can pick and choose which you follow and which you ignore
This is closest to how it is.. we have the laws (not overly applied by umpires) and we have the spirit of cricket (not followed by everyone).. this means we have a game in which 22 people are playing to different moral and personal standards and so we get problems.
The only way to fix it is to make laws and actively police and punish. It is the only why to ensure a game that is as fair, enjoyable and welcoming to all. What we have now simply isn’t and it’s may (or may not depending on your virewpoint) be another contributing factor to declining participation
-
A lot of people on this thread have been talking about the Spirit of Cricket in one form or another, so I thought I would actually put on here what it is in terms of in the MCC Laws - Preamble.
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/preamble-to-the-laws-spirit-of-cricket (https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/preamble-to-the-laws-spirit-of-cricket)
"Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket.
The major responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the captains, but extends to all players, umpires and, especially in junior cricket, teachers, coaches and parents.
Respect is central to the Spirit of Cricket.
Respect your captain, team-mates, opponents and the authority of the umpires.
Play hard and play fair.
Accept the umpire’s decision.
Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise.
Show self-discipline, even when things go against you.
Congratulate the opposition on their successes, and enjoy those of your own team.
Thank the officials and your opposition at the end of the match, whatever the result.
Cricket is an exciting game that encourages leadership, friendship and teamwork, which brings together people from different nationalities, cultures and religions, especially when played within the Spirit of Cricket."
Sledging ??
Verbals ??
Mankad ??
Sadly, all not in the spirit and how many here are happy with sledging..
-
"Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket"
What is clear is that the Spirit of Cricket means different things to different people. Which is fine, I have no issue with people that play the game differently to me - that's their choice - but if someone wants to be an abusive sledger on the field, constantly appealing from square leg, insists on carrying through with a mankad or timed out dismissal, I won't be having a chat and a beer with them after.
I look forward to numerous tales of Mankad dismissals throughout the season, via this forum.
And this coming from someone that's just turned 40, not a bigot and have no intentions of leaving this planet anytime soon.
And this is why games are generally more aggressive now, less players enjoy playing oppos or spending time post game for a beer than ever. Why would you want to spend an hour having a beer with the (No Swearing Please) who has just spent an hour or two calling you all the names under the sun and sledging you.... etc etc
It’s all part of the problem.. it’s not an enjoyable experience playing in aggressive, sledging games so why do we expect people to stay for a beer and ‘leave it on the field’.
Spirit of cricket should be all in the laws and umojrea should be harsh and leagues punish. It really is the only way as we a
L kmow on here.. so many different views and ‘crossing the line’ is different for everyone so there needs to be a defined binary line in the sand that everyone knows.
Like a leg side wide.. some still hate it BUT. Everyone knows where they stand with it
-
Sledging ??
Verbals ??
Mankad ??
Sadly, all not in the spirit and how many here are happy with sledging..
Sledging and verbals are specifically dealt with in the laws. Every time a fielder makes a personal remark or insults a batsmen, or shows serious dissent towards a decision, the umpire should award 5 penalty runs to the batting team. If a fielder physically threatens an umpire or batsman, the fielder must immediately be removed from the ground for the rest of the game.
As we've established, mankading isn't against the spirit.
-
What I most like about this debate is how it has evolved from being a discussion about the pro's and con's of the Mankad, to being a philosophical debate on our opinions of the 'Spirit of the Game'. As I've said, I'm not against the Mankad, but I was taught that a warning should be issued first. This has stuck with me, and I guess always will, for others it is a fairly straightforward issue of law breaking being punished. Each to their own.
The bigger issue is the Spirit of the Game, its importance to cricket and to sport in general. I play league cricket yes, but at Sunday 2s level. It is a fairly gentle mix of youth and experience, where older guys like me try to help the kids make their way in the game. So yeah, I recommend a warning first, just as I would warn a young bowler about near-overstepping, running on the pitch and even bowling full pitch above waist height. I know there are laws, but there are ways that they can be finessed at the level I play.
I also encourage players to be fair, and to comport themselves as gentlemen or ladies should. I walk, and I applaud others who walk. I may offer an apology to the bowler, or at least a rueful smile, if I nick one through or over slip for 4. If a youngster is clearly throwing, I have a chat to the captain rather than no-ball him. I speak up against sledging, aggression or bad language, I clap for opposition 50's, tons or fifers. In a similar way, I would apologise to my opponent for winning a point in tennis with a net-cord, or for making a horrible fluke in snooker.
Sport isn't war. There's nothing wrong with winning, but it has to be about playing the game too. Kids can learn a lot from sport about how to conduct themselves, and how to lose gracefully. I always thought that there's 2 types of people, those who've played team sport, and those who haven't. Personally, I think that sport as metaphor for life is something that should be understood, and supported.
I wish more games where played like this.. Rare to see on Saturdays, Sunday’s are better but getting worse with players wanting to tonk monster runs vs lesser players
-
And this is why games are generally more aggressive now, less players enjoy playing oppos or spending time post game for a beer than ever. Why would you want to spend an hour having a beer with the (No Swearing Please) who has just spent an hour or two calling you all the names under the sun and sledging you.... etc etc
It’s all part of the problem.. it’s not an enjoyable experience playing in aggressive, sledging games so why do we expect people to stay for a beer and ‘leave it on the field’.
Spirit of cricket should be all in the laws and umojrea should be harsh and leagues punish. It really is the only way as we a
L kmow on here.. so many different views and ‘crossing the line’ is different for everyone so there needs to be a defined binary line in the sand that everyone knows.
Like a leg side wide.. some still hate it BUT. Everyone knows where they stand with it
Your league must be very different to mine. I can't remember the last time I heard serious sledging in a game. At worst you might get a slightly sarcastic remark about the purity of your technique.
-
Your league must be very different to mine. I can't remember the last time I heard serious sledging in a game. At worst you might get a slightly sarcastic remark about the purity of your technique.
Northants wasn’t very good, wepl is worse sadly.
My father stopped coming to watch as he said the games just felt so aggressive and unpleasant to play in. Kinda says it all
-
Well yeah, I do all those things too, and I'm sure most players do, but isn't contradictory with the stance that a mankad is no different from a stumping or from running a batsman out who hasn't grounded his bat behind the line in normal play. Its just another perfectly fair and valid way to catch out a dozy batsman and gain a wicket. Cricket is a game of concentration, if you lose your concentration, you lose your wicket.
Would I mankad a 13 year old in a friendly game? No, not even with a warning. I wouldn't stump one either, and I probably wouldn't appeal for an lbw.
Would I encourage one 13 year old to mankad another 13 year old in an U13s league fixture with no warning required? Definitely - its a league game, they need to learn what is and isn't acceptable, and if we want to get rid of this daft old-fashioned idea that a mankad is somehow unsporting (which we do!), now is a good time to teach that lesson.
Fair enough, I completely appreciate that different opinions and interpretations exist. Allow me to propose a compromise:
Imagine you and I are captains or coaches. When we walk out to toss up, you say to me, 'Justin, please understand that should your batsman back up too far, too early, we will Mankad him without a warning on the pitch. I will also be advising the umpires before play begins.'
This, for me would be both fair, and entirely within the Spirit of the Game. I would let my team know, and there would be no hard feelings if the event occurred.
-
Fair enough, I completely appreciate that different opinions and interpretations exist. Allow me to propose a compromise:
Imagine you and I are captains or coaches. When we walk out to toss up, you say to me, 'Justin, please understand that should your batsman back up too far, too early, we will Mankad him without a warning on the pitch. I will also be advising the umpires before play begins.'
This, for me would be both fair, and entirely within the Spirit of the Game. I would let my team know, and there would be no hard feelings if the event occurred.
Better still if the leagues declare it as an acceptable form of dismissal to avoid any controversy. Mankad rule applies, so back up at your own risk. Period.
-
Let the batsman know the bowler is watching tell him to knock the bails off with the batsman out of his crease but don't appeal.
If the batter still advances after that knock the bails off and appeal no excuses he's had his warning and still trying it on.
-
Better still if the leagues declare it as an acceptable form of dismissal to avoid any controversy. Mankad rule applies, so back up at your own risk. Period.
Our league pretty much did this on their website before the 2018 season with a reminder that the wording had changed. As I said previously we only experienced one in the T20 cup but Id be interested to know how many occurred over the season
-
Hi, it's been a while since the end of our season, but I mentioned somewhere that I'd report how it panned out.
I had a discussion with the team at training about the Mankad. I'd taught them all to back up correctly previously, and I don't think any of them were aware at the time, when the one opposition batsman in particular was taking advantage. Told them about warnings, how to correctly execute a Mankad. My stance on warnings at the time was to clearly warn the opposition coach before the match, and let him deal with the information as he saw fit. I think it was only a couple weeks later the Buttler/Ashwin debacle popped up, so it was quite topical at the time!
As it turned out, we never met either team with the players with 'questionable' backing up, so the issue didn't come up, but it will still be there waiting for us next year.
As some of you have suggested, I think I'll clarify things at the Association pre season meeting, and see what happens from there.
Again, thanks to everyone for your contributions to what I thought was a healthy discussion.
-
2 games into my season and already had someone try and do an Ashwin without a warning to the batter, lots of laughing as the batter at the bowlers end was level with the umpire at the time lol.
-
2 games into my season and already had someone try and do an Ashwin without a warning to the batter, lots of laughing as the batter at the bowlers end was level with the umpire at the time lol.
No attempts in 5 games as yet but 5 warnings as batsmen are still leaving their crease early (both our side and oppos). It seems to make a difference as some people are not stealing yards as it’s becoming clear you can be run out
-
So two years on, we met the offending team again and had our first mankad.
I was up the other end umpiring and immediately noticed the batsman well out of his ground every ball, but said nothing to the bowler. Next over my son was bowling up the other end, and after a couple balls he noticed what was going on, and correctly executed the run-out as he ran through the crease. The opposition coach was umpiring up the other end and had no idea what was going on or what to do, so I told him that the batsman was out, but that this time we'd regard it as a warning, and that there wouldn't be another one.
In hindsight I think I should have sent him on his way, rather than perpetuate the outdated view that it's unsporting to run out the batter in this manner, when they are taking an advantage.
I brought this topic up at the association meeting two years ago, and the view was that it was fine, and kids would learn pretty quick. So it was a surprise to myself that when the time came, I found myself making it a warning instead of a dismissal!
-
you did the right thing, as a captain i wouldnt ever feel comfortable with getting someone out this way. it might be within the rules but its one i dont think will ever be agreed on so should be scrapped
-
Sorry but I find Mankad'ing very unsporting however so is taking too much advantage by the batter. To me the umpire whether it be a League or team umpire needs to warn the batter. After the second warning 5 penalty runs are awarded. This will not only stop this act from happening and no doubt creating many an argument on field but will then stop the batter taking advantage just as quick.
-
Sport can't be run with rules such as "issue only if if non striker taking too much advantage" etc. How much is too much? Either allow or not, rule needs to be clear. Calling someone who does mankading unsportsmanlike (when following the law) and no blame on the one stealing a run (going against the law) is hypocritical.
-
I'm very much the Schumacher fan regarding interpreting laws of the sport. If it says it's allowed, it IS allowed. Doesn't matter who moans after you've chosen to sit out your stop and go penalty in the last lap and if that happens to be that your garage is behind the finishing line, then so be it. Same here, it really does not matter at all how many cricketers get worked up by me running a dude out who's taking 1-2m advantage at the non strikers end. If I can't bowl from there, you can't run from there. Period.
-
I've never understood why anyone would consider it to be unsporting to run a batsman out.
-
I would put Mankading up there with appealing for a batsman to be timed out. You are permitted to do it but it isn't the way I think the game should be played. One could argue that anything goes at at the professional level of the game but I am fairly appalled to see the practice gaining more traction in junior cricket
-
if it were backing up miles then surely the best solution is to call it a dot ball (or wicket if the striker is out) no matter where the ball is hit. if the bowler over steps its is a no ball but they arent removed from the innings completely.
In amateur cricket the rule should be sponged, theres enough arguments and cheating umpires already.
-
The problem is this comes under the spirit of the game-a well used phrase that is open to interpretation with a multitude of moral variants from person to person. And is there such a thing as the spirit of the game anyway? Maybe it died out years ago.
Some people think it’s ok to dump your girlfriend and then start going out with her sister, others don’t :)
Personally I think an appeal only be made after a clear warning to the batsman that he knows and the umpire knows is clear-you’ve been warned-do it again and we will appeal and you will be out.
If I was coaching kids I would be very clear you must give a warning. Kids as we know copy what they see in the TV.
I would also be teaching them how to back up properly within the spirit of the game-whatever that is !
Amateur and youth cricket is getting more confrontational and mankading the oppo will only create more hostility.
-
The act of mankad'ing is what is contentious to players. I think that because it is an eligible means of dismissal, its fair game to do it in a match. However, I think that as bowlers, we have a duty to inform the umpire and batsman backing up that I intend to mankad, because its so decisive and can lead to hostility.
I do believe that the fault lies with the batsman backing up though
-
the fault does lie with the batsmen, but as a batsmen if i were an inch outside the crease by mistake i would be fuming. i also believe that its almost impossible for a bowler to fully start their action and mankad the batsmen without pausing - which in itself would it not make it a dead ball?
-
They changed the law @Warneymonster, can be done during the delivery action now.
It's a tricky one, as a captain whilst I can see it being of annoyance to some - a rule is a rule. If you were stumped by an inch then it's no different to being mankadded by an inch, albeit one is more controversial due to not being as common in the game.
-
the fault does lie with the batsmen, but as a batsmen if i were an inch outside the crease by mistake i would be fuming. i also believe that its almost impossible for a bowler to fully start their action and mankad the batsmen without pausing - which in itself would it not make it a dead ball?
There is no requirement for the bowler to start their action. The bowler can execute a run out as soon as the ball becomes live. It only becomes a dead ball if the attempt is unsuccessful.
41.16 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early
41.16.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball
comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to
release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out. In these circumstances, the nonstriker
will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down
by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball,
whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.
If you're an inch out you're unlikely to be given out unless there is a replay available, which rules that out of most games. If you're a foot out, it's easy for the ump to see, and you deserve to be given out.
It's the batter's job to make sure they are in their ground whenever the ball is live, and if they are not, it's the fielding side's job to run them out or stump them. If you get out this way, it's because you made a mistake - exactly the same as being out caught, bowled LBW etc.
The more I think about it, the less problem I have with it.
-
thats why i would put it in the same box as a noball, just have a runs penalty to the batter instead.
if one of my bowlers tries it in the league next season i will call the batter back, its not right as far as im concerned
-
If you're dismissed to a mankad, then you should be buying a jug for your team mates for being a wally. It was valid back in the 1940's and it's still a perfectly fine form of dismissal today. Next the anti brigade will want the nickname changed to a 'personkad', call it whatever you want...it's still out.
-
the fault does lie with the batsmen, but as a batsmen if i were an inch outside the crease by mistake i would be fuming. i also believe that its almost impossible for a bowler to fully start their action and mankad the batsmen without pausing - which in itself would it not make it a dead ball?
Why dead ball? You are then penalizing the bowler to bowl an extra ball for no fault of his. Also by mankading, bowler hasn't completed bowling anyway, so really even dead ball is like zero penalty for batting side. I feel wicket is right one, since this is just like run out/stumping, no difference. However if wicket is too much for many, then at least something along the lines of penalize 4 runs from batting team total would be right IMO. So you try to steal an extra run, you get penalized 4 runs - serves as a sufficient deterrent, particularly at the death when this will most likely be attempted.
-
People have no issues when batsmen get stumped by a few mm, just because they momentarily dragged their foot out. No run is being attempted, and there is no attempt to come down the pitch either - it is unintentional. So why is this ok, but not a mankad?
-
People have no issues when batsmen get stumped by a few mm, just because they momentarily dragged their foot out. No run is being attempted, and there is no attempt to come down the pitch either - it is unintentional. So why is this ok, but not a mankad?
Agree, in case of stumping, the batter didn't even try to take a run and could have even lost balance, still that is considered not ok while intentional stepping out and gaining advantage by non-striker is viewed as ok. Just needs a change of mindset.