Topic: The Mankad - opinions? (Read 32382 times)

SLA · « **Reply #75 on:** March 14, 2019, 01:05:31 PM »

Quote from: SOULMAN1012 on March 14, 2019, 12:55:49 PM

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.

SD · « **Reply #76 on:** March 14, 2019, 01:14:07 PM »

Quote from: SLA on March 14, 2019, 01:05:31 PM

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

SLA · « **Reply #77 on:** March 14, 2019, 01:16:51 PM »

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."

SLA · « **Reply #78 on:** March 14, 2019, 01:19:45 PM »

Quote from: SD on March 14, 2019, 01:14:07 PM

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.

Real Munson · « **Reply #79 on:** March 14, 2019, 01:25:45 PM »

Quote from: SLA on March 14, 2019, 01:05:31 PM

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?

SLA · « **Reply #80 on:** March 14, 2019, 01:31:50 PM »

Quote from: DorsetDan on March 14, 2019, 01:22:54 PM

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.

SLA · « **Reply #81 on:** March 14, 2019, 01:38:00 PM »

Quote from: Real Munson on March 14, 2019, 01:25:45 PM

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.

SOULMAN1012 · « **Reply #82 on:** March 14, 2019, 01:47:41 PM »

Quote from: SLA on March 14, 2019, 01:05:31 PM

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.

SOULMAN1012 · « **Reply #83 on:** March 14, 2019, 01:52:44 PM »

Quote from: SLA on March 14, 2019, 01:19:45 PM

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

Real Munson · « **Reply #84 on:** March 14, 2019, 01:54:42 PM »

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?

SLA · « **Reply #85 on:** March 14, 2019, 01:59:32 PM »

Quote from: DorsetDan on March 14, 2019, 01:39:54 PM

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

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.

SLA · « **Reply #86 on:** March 14, 2019, 02:04:47 PM »

Quote from: SOULMAN1012 on March 14, 2019, 01:47:41 PM

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.

SLA · « **Reply #87 on:** March 14, 2019, 02:07:48 PM »

Quote from: SOULMAN1012 on March 14, 2019, 01:52:44 PM

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.

SLA · « **Reply #88 on:** March 14, 2019, 02:12:42 PM »

Quote from: Real Munson on March 14, 2019, 01:54:42 PM

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?

SD · « **Reply #89 on:** March 14, 2019, 02:54:20 PM »

Quote from: SOULMAN1012 on March 14, 2019, 01:47:41 PM

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

Author Topic: The Mankad - opinions? (Read 32382 times)

SLA

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SD

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SLA

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SLA

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

Real Munson

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SLA

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SLA

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SOULMAN1012

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SOULMAN1012

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

Real Munson

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SLA

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SLA

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SLA

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SLA

Re: The Mankad - opinions?

SD

Re: The Mankad - opinions?