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.