Print

[MD2812]

So because the laws say the bowler doesn't have to attempt to bowl if he's going to mankad.

To play devils advocate: If the light is closing in, or it's starting to rain, could the bowler keep running up and mankad the batsman, even if he's not out. In doing so he kills enough time that the game has to be called off?

It appears that could be within the laws although outside the optional spirit of the game?


The reason why I think mankad is immoral: The bowler hasn't beaten the batsman through skill or ability.
If the batsman had set off blindly like the WC Courtney Walsh incident, when he gave a warning instead of breaking the stumps, then yes the batsman is trying to gain an advantage and with that comes a risk.
That is not what the Zimbabwe batsman was trying in this case.

[rich041187]

Why cant the umpires simply step in and just tell everyone to grow up and calm down, tell the bowler to get back to his mark and batsman to stop trying to cheat by stealing a yard. Finish the game properly. Seems since video technology they have lost all power/authority and confidence to make any of their own calls on the field. What would Dickie Bird or David Shepherd do??

[Kieron_BT]

Even more, if you think about it, the bowler will have had to slow down in his final stages of his run up to effect the mankad, as this was such a close call (mm infact!) I would go further to say that if he had bowled at his normal speed at the time the ball was released the batsman would probably still have had his bat in the crease!

Basically the mankad made the batman become out of his crease I think.

[frooper11]

What is concerning is that this happened at an Under 19 tournament, should the next generation of Test\ODI cricketers be encouraged win by these means?

In a similar way to the Indian lad getting over 1k runs I really hope the coach of the side feels rather sheepish to have been involved in the entire debacle.

[Ayrtek Cricket]

The key thing is if he warned the player 1st, with the Somerset run out I know that a warning was issued previously which is the "sporting" thing to do. Basically a get back in your box type action where the batsmen is made aware of the fact the fielding team know hes trying to steal ground.

If this didnt happen as hes simply got him out without any prior warning then IMO is very unsportsmanlike as the batsmen was only marginally over the crease in the assumption that the bowler was going to deliver the ball and as all coaches encourage backing up accordingly.

The umpires will have asked the fielding side if they want to uphold the appeal as Batty was asked with Somerset. They are given the chance then to withdraw it should they opt to do so or uphold is as is the case here.

[northernboy1987]

The key thing is if he warned the player 1st, with the Somerset run out I know that a warning was issued previously which is the "sporting" thing to do. Basically a get back in your box type action where the batsmen is made aware of the fact the fielding team know hes trying to steal ground.

If this didnt happen as hes simply got him out without any prior warning then IMO is very unsportsmanlike as the batsmen was only marginally over the crease in the assumption that the bowler was going to deliver the ball and as all coaches encourage backing up accordingly.

The umpires will have asked the fielding side if they want to uphold the appeal as Batty was asked with Somerset. They are given the chance then to withdraw it should they opt to do so or uphold is as is the case here.

This is the key point for me. I understand it's the laws of the game but I feel that the "right" thing to do is warn the batsman first and then if he continues trying to steal ground then he's fair game. It still wouldn't sit right with me and it's not something I'd do myself but I'd have more respect for the fielding side.

[uknsaunders]

The key thing is if he warned the player 1st, with the Somerset run out I know that a warning was issued previously which is the "sporting" thing to do. Basically a get back in your box type action where the batsmen is made aware of the fact the fielding team know hes trying to steal ground.

If this didnt happen as hes simply got him out without any prior warning then IMO is very unsportsmanlike as the batsmen was only marginally over the crease in the assumption that the bowler was going to deliver the ball and as all coaches encourage backing up accordingly.

No warning

[StillNotOut]

Interesting articles

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/604156.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wctimeline/content/current/story/500463.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Disco]

It's a @*+#'s trick, the law is there to stop the non striker from buggering off 5yds down the pitch before the ball is released, not for someone who is legitimately backing up as all batsmen should do. As mentioned in this case if the bowler continues as normal he wouldn't have been out of his crease anyway.

[roco]

Tend to agree with Tom here

although the laws state its ok its in the spirit to warn them first

I remember the surrey one and that was perfect as warning given but batsmen thought "he won't do it" so carried on and was run out but surrey were still booed off if remember

cricket is going the way of other sports now though so gentlmenly conduct will slowly phase out and it will become more like football, it already is with some of the sledging and behaviour

just sit back and remember the good old days

[gaurav23]

With the bat in your left hand, you can get atleast a metre outside the crease & atleast another metre or 2 after the ball is released (legitimately) - why try & be cheeky by taking advantage in the name of spirit ??
If anything unfair in the whole event, it's started by the non-striker by being greedy & you can't obviously expect the bowler to see the opposition taking undue advantage each time. Having said that,warning the batsman once makes total sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[edge]

Cheeky as hell by the bowler, but according to the laws of the game he's done nothing wrong, it's out. Dozy by the batsman mind, he's watching the bowler all the way and not twigged. Don't see what delivery stride or not has to do with it.

[tate035]

With the bat in your left hand, you can get atleast a metre outside the crease & atleast another metre or 2 after the ball is released (legitimately) - why try & be cheeky by taking advantage in the name of spirit ??
If anything unfair in the whole event, it's started by the non-striker by being greedy & you can't obviously expect the bowler to see the opposition taking undue advantage each time. Having said that,warning the batsman once makes total sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously??  Have you watched the incident?? The bowler had no intention of bowling a legitimate delivery. The poor lad was out by less than an inch.. that isnt gaining an advantage because if you watch it you will see that if the bowler had bowled a legitimate delivery then the non striker would have only just left his crease.

Simples... 

[tate035]

Cheeky as hell by the bowler, but according to the laws of the game he's done nothing wrong, it's out. Dozy by the batsman mind, he's watching the bowler all the way and not twigged. Don't see what delivery stride or not has to do with it.

You have hit the nail on the head... The non striker did watch the bowler and set off when he expected the bowler to be in his delivery stride. Take another look and you will see the bowler had no intention of bowling a legitimate delivery. How can that be according to the rules of the game? Surely the rule is that on each ball you should endeavour to "bowl an overarm delivery" at the facing batsman... from behind the popping crease...

[gaurav23]

Damn !! My bad. Totally forgot to mention 'Mankad in general'.
Couldn't find the video on YouTube. Any help with the link ?? Havent quite seen it yet - jus the image posted on here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk