Print

[Chompy9760]

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

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?

[edge]

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.

[Real Munson]

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.

[six and out]

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.

[SD]

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

[Tom]

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?

[Real Munson]

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.

[Tom]

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.

[richthekeeper]

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.

[SLA]

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"

[SLA]

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.

[SLA]

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.

[Real Munson]

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.

[shadowlight]

one warning, after that everything is fair game

[Chompy9760]

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?