Print

[sgcricket]

I am sure many of you would have gone through this but I agree with the points made by the author.
Here is the link to the article: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/604156.html

What's wrong with mankading?
The laws allow it, so why should umpires ask the fielding captain to reconsider appeals for such run-outs?
Brydon Coverdale

Remember that time when Kevin Pietersen danced down the pitch to Shane Warne and was stumped, and the umpire asked Ricky Ponting to withdraw the appeal? Of course you don't, because it didn't happen, and the very idea of it happening is absurd. Why, then, do umpires continue to pressure fielding captains to reconsider appeals for the so-called Mankad dismissal, the act of a bowler running out a non-striker who is backing up?

How are the situations any different, really? In both cases the batsman is attempting to gain advantage, in one by reaching the pitch of the ball and negating spin, in the other by reducing the distance he must cover to complete a run. A wicketkeeper who stumps a batsman is lauded for his sharp work, yet an eagle-eyed bowler who mankads is usually condemned as unsporting.

In 2011, the ICC made it easier for bowlers to effect such a dismissal. Previously the bowler had to take the bails off before entering his delivery stride. This is still the case under the MCC's Laws of Cricket, but the ICC adapted its playing conditions to allow the act "before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing". It was a clear and deliberate move to keep batsmen accountable.

But umpires have undermined the regulation by victimising bowlers who are only trying to stop batsmen sneaking an advantage. Consider these two recent examples.

Last February in an ODI at the SCG, Lahiru Thirimanne continually left his crease far too early. R Ashwin warned Thirimanne and when the batsman kept doing it, Ashwin ran him out. Instead of raising his finger, the umpire, Paul Reiffel, consulted his square-leg colleague and asked India's captain, Virender Sehwag, if he wanted to go through with the appeal.

In doing so, Reiffel implicitly suggested Ashwin's act of removing the bail was underhanded. It told the crowd India were borderline cheats, made Thirimanne think his behaviour was okay, and placed undue pressure on Sehwag, who ended up withdrawing a legitimate appeal. Thirimanne batted on, continued to back up unfairly, scored 62 and set up a Sri Lankan victory.

Later in 2012, Surrey's Murali Kartik mankaded Somerset's Alex Barrow during a County Championship match. Like Ashwin, Kartik had warned the batsman, though he wasn't compelled to do so. Still, the umpire, Peter Hartley, wasn't happy. He asked the fielding captain, Gareth Batty, three times if he would withdraw the appeal. Rightly, Batty refused, and later Surrey were booed off the field.

Reiffel and Hartley should simply have raised a finger, as they would for any other run-out, but instead they added to the ill-feeling by suggesting the bowler was in the wrong. The ICC's playing condition 42.11 explicitly states that a mankad is fair. An additional clause should be added to state that an umpire must not consult the fielding captain before making his decision, unless the conversation is instigated by the captain.

Certainly a mankad is no less fair than when a striker's straight drive rockets through the bowler's hands and hits the stumps with the non-striker out of his ground. Of course, umpires rightly treat that as they do a regulation run-out. Just as they should with the mankad.

[ProCricketer1982]

If the argument is about 'is running out a non striker allowed/in the spirit' etc then personally if the batsmen is leaving his crease before the ball is bowled then he is actually the one cheating as he's 'stealing yards'. Yes it seems accepted that this is acceptable but I'm actually on the side of giving the warning first time.. If a player/team keep doing it then run them out.

As long as there is a warning for me then all is fair as the batsmen is the one trying to cheat by stealing yards anyway.

[Ayrtek Cricket]

There was some chat about the above incident between kirby and Gareth Batty when we were away with them in October, Battys stance was that Barrow was warned beforehand yet continued to take advantage so needed to learn his lesson hence the reason why he upheld the appeal.

If he had backed down it would have made him as a captain look undermined in front of his team and so he stood firm. The somerset crowd weren't happy wand he said he was berated by them when they left the field for upholding the appeal yet the fact Barrow was breaking the rules was overlooked.

[fatbats]

If they've been warned then there fair game

I played against alas that would get a running start 3 yards back from non strikers end so he was warned and stopped as we would have run him out

[ProCricketer1982]

It's all about the warning. At the end of the day leaving your crease early is cheating, it just seems to be 'accepted' and encouraged as 'backing up'. If I see someone doing it, I'll probably make a few comments so they know we've seen them. If they still continue then I get a bowler to knock the stumps over as a warning. After that, you've had your warning (and the team has!) so anymore and you're out.

[joeljonno]

I wouldn't say it was cheating, any more than handling the ball. It's not against the rules but you can be out from a result.

As a batsman, you should be expecting the consequences, however I think in the spirit of cricket a warning should be given at first.

[ProCricketer1982]

As a batsman, you should be expecting the consequences, however I think in the spirit of cricket a warning should be given at first.

Yep, I agree. YOu shouldn't be all 'surprised' if you do get run out without a warning BUT if people are actually playing in 'the spirit of cricket' then give a warning first. Unfortunately not that many seem to play in the spirit of cricket now a days.. Lots of personal abuse that is just accepted as 'banter', send offs etc etc

[dmacwana]

Not in favour of warnings either. As a professional I would expect the batsman to be aware of the rules and he himself should make sure that he does not back up . Will you warn a bowler if he oversteps the first time or give it a no-ball ?

[sgcricket]

I am not in favour of the warning either. And I think the umpire should just give a ruling instead of asking the captain to re-consider the appeal. That paints the captain in poor light.

If it was in the rules earlier for a wicket keeper to warn a batsman the first time and only stump him the second time and subsequently that rule was changed, would it be "in the spirit" to give a warning?

[tim2000s]

I am not in favour of the warning either. And I think the umpire should just give a ruling instead of asking the captain to re-consider the appeal. That paints the captain in poor light.

If it was in the rules earlier for a wicket keeper to warn a batsman the first time and only stump him the second time and subsequently that rule was changed, would it be "in the spirit" to give a warning?

Frankly, the whole warning idea is a daft argument. you don't give a warning if someone handles the ball, the opposition batsman obstructs a fielder, or the batsman strikes the ball twice. All of these are clearly defined in the rules. Being run out because you are out of your ground is also clearly defined.

I believe the warning stems from the days when cricket was considered to be a gentlemanly sport, and the batsman might not have realised they were out of their ground but times have changed and as players try to cheat by gaining a couple of yards on a run, they know precisely what they are doing and if a fielding player spots it, then it's very clear cut...

[sgcricket]

Totally agree with you on that Tim. You put it way better than I wanted to.