What's new

[VIDEO/PICTURE] Mankad wins a game of cricket - But is that really cricket?

Robert said:
The solution for other teams is to start Mankading India, rather than let them get away with backing up too.
Click to expand...

I think this is what might start to happen.

If so, Indian batters being Mankaded will be a interesting opportunity to test the proclamations in this thread that Indian nation will 100% support such an approach without complaint.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
She was repeatedly gaining head start. In this case even with pause you can't have lie 3 or 4 feet head start. That is how far she was before even Deepti took off the bails. How hard it is to keep your bat inside the crease until the ball is release. It is a valid question.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. She did not have any head-start. Watch the picture below. Her bat is still inside the crease as the bowler entered her delivery stride.

F6F31BCD-A01B-4D7B-96FB-AC3C4E2F2E54.jpg

Now let’s compare it to Ashwin’s Mankad against Sri Lanka in 2012. You can clearly see the batsmen leaving the crease as Ashwin entered the delivery stride.

BADDF2C4-3FD6-4435-8201-D5D7573906C8.jpg

If a batsmen leaves the crease as the bowler is entering the delivery stride you should definitely run him out. However, if you are deliberately stopping before you release the ball even though the batsmen was inside the crease when you entered your delivery stride then it is an underhand tactic and should be strongly discouraged.

I am a strong advocate for Mankading but I cannot condone this. Very poor behavior. Judging by the timing of her movement, she is basically leaving the crease at the point where the bowler was supposed to release the ball. That is fine and most batsmen do that. However, leaving the crease while the bowler is running into ball and entering his delivery stride is obviously unacceptable.
 
Mamoon said:
That is incorrect. She did not have any head-start. Watch the picture below. Her bat is still inside the crease as the bowler entered her delivery stride.

View attachment 117168

Now let’s compare it to Ashwin’s Mankad against Sri Lanka in 2012. You can clearly see the batsmen leaving the crease as Ashwin entered the delivery stride.

View attachment 117169

If a batsmen leaves the crease as the bowler is entering the delivery stride you should definitely run him out. However, if you are deliberately stopping before you release the ball even though the batsmen was inside the crease when you entered your delivery stride then it is an underhand tactic and should be strongly discouraged.

I am a strong advocate for Mankading but I cannot condone this. Very poor behavior. Judging by the timing of her movement, she is basically leaving the crease at the point where the bowler was supposed to release the ball. That is fine and most batsmen do that. However, leaving the crease while the bowler is running into ball and entering his delivery stride is obviously unacceptable.
Click to expand...


My question was her bat inside the crease when she delivered the ball? She was 4 feet outside the crease even before Deepti took off the bails. She has to complete her action 100% before you venture outside the crease not 50%. This is a head start any way we spin it. Bat should never leave the crease until the ball is delivered. Period. ICC should make that rule very clear. Stealing extra inch before the ball is delivered is not within the spirit. Some slow bowlers may have very slow release action. YOu can easily reach half the pitch.
 
I'm not against Mankading at all, in fact I strongly support it. However, I do agree that this one was premeditated, no doubt about that, so it didn't look good.

Still within the rules and batters need to be careful. It was tactical, not in the spirit of the game but within the rules, so yeah, that's the way it is. Let's move on.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
She was repeatedly gaining head start. In this case even with pause you can't have lie 3 or 4 feet head start. That is how far she was before even Deepti took off the bails. How hard it is to keep your bat inside the crease until the ball is release. It is a valid question.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t three or four feet though. At point of “release” it was six inches. That’s what makes it a deliberate trap by Deepti.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
My question was her bat inside the crease when she delivered the ball? She was 4 feet outside the crease even before Deepti took off the bails. She has to complete her action 100% before you venture outside the crease not 50%. This is a head start any way we spin it. Bat should never leave the crease until the ball is delivered. Period. ICC should make that rule very clear. Stealing extra inch before the ball is delivered is not within the spirit. Some slow bowlers may have very slow release action. YOu can easily reach half the pitch.
Click to expand...

Her bat was 2-3 inches inside the crease when the bowler entered the delivery stride. Hence, Mankading did not apply in this situation.

The bowler stopped while she was still inside the crease. She was waiting for her to leave the crease and then ran her out.

The non-striker was watching the batter as she left the crease assuming that the bowler is about to release the ball.

Was it poor awareness by the non-striker, sure it was, but if the non-striker is still inside the crease when the bowler stops in an attempt to Mankade it is definitely an underhand tactic.

It was an example of a premeditated Mankading. Is it illegal? No. Should it be discouraged? In my opinion, yes.
 
Cricket is probably the only sport where if u follow the rules - u can be accused of being against the spirit of the game !
 
NishanKonar said:
Cricket is probably the only sport where if u follow the rules - u can be accused of being against the spirit of the game !
Click to expand...
That's because this spirit of cricket is being designed to suit a select few.
 
India skipper Harmanpreet Kaur backed Deepti Sharma's run out of Charlie Dean at the non-striker's end during her delivery stride at Lord's on Saturday, calling it a "part of the game".

With 17 runs to win, the 10th wicket partnership on 35 and Charlie Dean edging closer to a fantastic half-century, drama unfolded at Lord's with Deepti running Dean out at the non-striker's end in her delivery stride.

The dismissal, which is in the 'Unfair Play' section of the laws is set to be moved to the 'Run Out' section in the updated ICC Playing Conditions that come into effect from October 1.

Asked about the dismissal at the post-match presentation ceremony, Harmanpreet played down the unwanted noise around it, stating that Deepti "hasn't done something outside the rules".

"To be honest, I thought you will ask about all the 10 wickets which was not easy to take as well (when asked about the dismissal).

"It's part of the game I don't think we have done something new. It shows your awareness, what batters are doing. I will back my players, she hasn't done something outside the rules. At the end of the day a win is a win and we will take that."

The wicket gave India a 16-run victory with Dean nearly taking the game out of their hands with her knock of 47 that helped England recover from a precarious 65/7 in the run chase.

ICC
 
NishanKonar said:
Cricket is probably the only sport where if u follow the rules - u can be accused of being against the spirit of the game !
Click to expand...

There are plenty of situations in other sports where things happen that are technically within the rules but fans consider it unfair or unsporting.
 
Mcc/icc should do something about it. Mankad mode of dismissal is bad advert of cricket. In close matches like yesterday it just spoils the experience.

What if they make a new line behind umpire as a mandatory touch line for every non striker batsmen to take head start?
 
Kohli said:
My fellow Indians when it supports them: it’s Legal

When it’s against them: Cry cry cry
Click to expand...

Has it happened against India though?

Not out of hate or anything but I’d genuinely love to see it happen to India in the WT20 just to see how the fans react to it.
 
Mamoon said:
Her bat was 2-3 inches inside the crease when the bowler entered the delivery stride. Hence, Mankading did not apply in this situation.

The bowler stopped while she was still inside the crease. She was waiting for her to leave the crease and then ran her out.

The non-striker was watching the batter as she left the crease assuming that the bowler is about to release the ball.

Was it poor awareness by the non-striker, sure it was, but if the non-striker is still inside the crease when the bowler stops in an attempt to Mankade it is definitely an underhand tactic.

It was an example of a premeditated Mankading. Is it illegal? No. Should it be discouraged? In my opinion, yes.
Click to expand...

Can’t believe I’m writing this, but the above set of explanations by Mamoon clearly defines the matter and is a well formed and evidenced view.

Arguing that, whilst legal, the act was not in poor taste, is akin to lawyers pedanticly arguing the small print of a contract in a court of law.

I don’t have anything against the likes of Ashwin, in fact he’s one of the more likeable Indians and generally a good man. However there are more important hills to die on than mankading, and the sooner the MCC codify a clear response to it in law, the better.

Also, as Robert said, there will now probably be more instances of mankading towards Indian teams. It’ll be a shame, because it’ll butcher the flow of games.
 
The spirit of the game is nonsense. A 'no-ball' is given when the bowler's heel is just on the line (with no part of it behind the line), even though the bowler gains no unfair advantage by doing so. No one issues a warning to the bowler. And this is not considered a violation of the spirit of the game since it is the rule, which people have come to accept over time.

If a non-striker is outside the crease before the ball is bowled, they get an unfair advantage. The regulations should be simple: "Do not leave the crease from the time the bowler begins his/her run up until the ball leaves his/her hand."
 
Kohli said:
My fellow Indians when it supports them: it’s Legal

When it’s against them: Cry cry cry
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have never noticed any mainstream Indian batter going outside the crease before the ball is bowled. Will, keep a close eye from now on.
 
Kaptan said:
The spirit of the game is nonsense. A 'no-ball' is given when the bowler's heel is just on the line (with no part of it behind the line), even though the bowler gains no unfair advantage by doing so. No one issues a warning to the bowler. And this is not considered a violation of the spirit of the game since it is the rule, which people have come to accept over time.

If a non-striker is outside the crease before the ball is bowled, they get an unfair advantage. The regulations should be simple: "Do not leave the crease from the time the bowler begins his/her run up until the ball leaves his/her hand."
Click to expand...

Actually the bowler does gain an advantage in case of front-foot no-ball. When the foot lands(where the no-ball rule is implemented), the bowler doesn't actually release the ball the that exact same time. Bowlers usually slide their front-foot by few inches(after the landing of front-foot) so when they actually release the ball, their foot is usually over the crease. I think it's an unfair advantage as well.
 
Kaptan said:
The spirit of the game is nonsense. A 'no-ball' is given when the bowler's heel is just on the line (with no part of it behind the line), even though the bowler gains no unfair advantage by doing so. No one issues a warning to the bowler. And this is not considered a violation of the spirit of the game since it is the rule, which people have come to accept over time.

If a non-striker is outside the crease before the ball is bowled, they get an unfair advantage. The regulations should be simple: "Do not leave the crease from the time the bowler begins his/her run up until the ball leaves his/her hand."
Click to expand...

But the mankad rule says "Do not leave the crease from the time the bowler begins his/her run up until the bowler is expected to release." You can check it.
 
A deliberate variation in the bowling stride was made yesterday after bringing the fielder in. It is very clear the batter's movement was natural even if you look at replays.

Ashwini made cricket into bollywood-esque game of maths.
 
thecrusade911 said:
Actually the bowler does gain an advantage in case of front-foot no-ball. When the foot lands(where the no-ball rule is implemented), the bowler doesn't actually release the ball the that exact same time. Bowlers usually slide their front-foot by few inches(after the landing of front-foot) so when they actually release the ball, their foot is usually over the crease. I think it's an unfair advantage as well.
Click to expand...

I am talking about situations where the heel is on the line.
Something like this: maxresdefault.jpg
what advantage does the bowler get in this case compared to this: Wildermuth-benefits-from-touch-and-go-call-still.jpg
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In fact that’s a great idea. How about awarding that wicket to the bowler for “ presence of mind” under immense pressure and of course knowing the social stigma that he/she would have to deal with post doing it. How about a bravery award to go with it too <a href="https://twitter.com/ICC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ICC</a> ? <a href="https://t.co/9PqqetnnGw">https://t.co/9PqqetnnGw</a></p>— Ashwin &#55356;&#56814;&#55356;&#56819; (@ashwinravi99) <a href="https://twitter.com/ashwinravi99/status/1573916702173147137?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 25, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
thecrusade911 said:
But the mankad rule says "Do not leave the crease from the time the bowler begins his/her run up until the bowler is expected to release." You can check it.
Click to expand...

I know. But this is where ICC should get involved and clear things once and for all. "Expected to release" the ball is a very vague term, even yesterday the 3rd umpire must have believed that the batter left the crease before the bowler would have released the ball so he gave it out.
 
Spirit of the game is the nonsense invented by the English to hide their incompetence on the field. Deepti was well within her rights and the rules agree with it. That should settle the matter once and for all.
Speaking of, what exactly is the definition of 'spirit of the game'? How does one go about explaining it's contours, what exactly it entails and why should the rest of the world be coerced into following some bygone era boomer principles when winning the game is what should matter above all?
 
Thoughts [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] ?

This is from reddit, 3 consecutive balls in that over...

1.jpg
 
KingOfPakBreakfast said:
The MCC can easily end the handwringing around this occurrence by formalising the rules.

Any time you’re in a position to Mankad, you give the non-striker one singular verbal warning, as evidenced by the umpire. Following that, it’s fair game to be mankaded.

Thus it’s one verbal warning per player. You enforce that rule long enough and non-strikers will get trained to be more disciplined over time.
Click to expand...

While we're at it, lets introduce warnings for front foot no ball,stumpings etc as well
 
Robert said:
To me that is sharp practice. It’s not as though Davies was backing up by a yard or more. Deepti did not intend to deliver the ball.

Well, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. India can expect the same to happen to them in future.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be a yard?
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is how you back up. Keep your bat in the crease. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/mankading?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#mankading</a> <a href="https://t.co/1iqq6AijIj">https://t.co/1iqq6AijIj</a></p>— Monty Panesar (@MontyPanesar) <a href="https://twitter.com/MontyPanesar/status/1573910732957454336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 25, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
FdfPc7ZaAAAZt9R


Seems Charlie Dean had been doing this earlier as well.
 
KingOfPakBreakfast said:
Can’t believe I’m writing this, but the above set of explanations by Mamoon clearly defines the matter and is a well formed and evidenced view.

Arguing that, whilst legal, the act was not in poor taste, is akin to lawyers pedanticly arguing the small print of a contract in a court of law.

I don’t have anything against the likes of Ashwin, in fact he’s one of the more likeable Indians and generally a good man. However there are more important hills to die on than mankading, and the sooner the MCC codify a clear response to it in law, the better.

Also, as Robert said, there will now probably be more instances of mankading towards Indian teams. It’ll be a shame, because it’ll butcher the flow of games.
Click to expand...

Yep, bowlers will regularly be pulling out of their delivery stride to try to Mankad.
 
According to the rules, this is out.

I think there will be some more incidents like this, and eventually 'mankading' will no longer carry a stigma. Non-strikers will be more vigilant and the game will move on.

Where cricket takes a stand, like underarm bowling, it goes into the rules book, gets banned and no problems at all for anyone.

Backing up while bowler is delivering the ball accrues unfair advantage to the batting team. Sometimes you see non-strikers running with the bowler to gather momentum, especially if they need 2 runs off the last ball. Quite unseemly and unfair to the bowler, delivering a crucial last ball.

We see the same with underarm serves in Tennis. Ugly as it looks, it is within the rules. Now accepted. Some like it, some don't, but it no longer is a problem.

Cricket has expanded to accommodate many things it frowned upon - such as limited over 'pyjama' cricket, separate franchise windows, front foot noballs, zero rest days etc in keeping with where the sentiment is, or in many cases, where the money is.

Yet, it is the fall of another tradition in the game.

Cricket has its traditions that go back 150 years. You see opposing batsmen get applauded for a century. It shouldn't be done. You will never see opponents applauding Messi for a hat-trick. But it's a done thing in cricket. If you don't do it, it's bad.

Letting the best bowler lead the team, batsmen entering the field after fielding team, not claiming catches on bump balls, not bowling no balls when the opposition batsman is at 99 with one to win etc - some have been taken care of by technology, some will go away on their own.

What we will have left is a modern 'win at all cost' game, in its most basic format, for the widest of audience who care little for the game's traditions but a lot about that evening's entertainment.

That's fine I suppose.
 
MenInG said:
FdfPc7ZaAAAZt9R


Seems Charlie Dean had been doing this earlier as well.
Click to expand...

The image I posted above has her doing it in 2 deliveries prior too. Hence the "planned" mankading by her.

When it comes to spirit of cricket - its a pointless debate.

This same team, set of fans, are okay winning a world cup on technicality, running out a NZ batter despite obstructing him, claiming to be not out after clearing nicking it and shamelessly defending it still. I can go on and on, let them keep spirit of cricket certificate. We'll have the trophy thanks.
 
Robert said:
Because then Dean would be trying to gain unfair advantage. On the Mankad ball she wasn't doing this.
Click to expand...

even an inch is an unfair advantage. Intention doesnt matter. If she was casual,thats enough reason to declare her out too.
 
Mamoon said:
That is incorrect. She did not have any head-start. Watch the picture below. Her bat is still inside the crease as the bowler entered her delivery stride.

View attachment 117168

Now let’s compare it to Ashwin’s Mankad against Sri Lanka in 2012. You can clearly see the batsmen leaving the crease as Ashwin entered the delivery stride.

View attachment 117169

If a batsmen leaves the crease as the bowler is entering the delivery stride you should definitely run him out. However, if you are deliberately stopping before you release the ball even though the batsmen was inside the crease when you entered your delivery stride then it is an underhand tactic and should be strongly discouraged.

I am a strong advocate for Mankading but I cannot condone this. Very poor behavior. Judging by the timing of her movement, she is basically leaving the crease at the point where the bowler was supposed to release the ball. That is fine and most batsmen do that. However, leaving the crease while the bowler is running into ball and entering his delivery stride is obviously unacceptable.
Click to expand...

It has changed from Ashwin's days. Now batter has to stay in crease till the ball is actually released

LAW 38
As well as a number of more minor changes, there is one significant addition to this Law. The old Law 41.16 (non-striker
leaving his/her ground early) has been moved to Law 38..
This clause remains one of the most controversial clauses in the Laws of Cricket, despite MCC having changed the
emphasis of this Law, so that responsibility is put on the non-striker to stay in his/her ground until the ball is released.
This latest change goes a little further, removing this Law from ‘unfair play’ and moving it to Run out. After all, this is
simply a run out, and there is nothing unfair about it
Click to expand...
 
TM Riddle said:
Spirit of the game is the nonsense invented by the English to hide their incompetence on the field. Deepti was well within her rights and the rules agree with it. That should settle the matter once and for all.
Speaking of, what exactly is the definition of 'spirit of the game'? How does one go about explaining it's contours, what exactly it entails and why should the rest of the world be coerced into following some bygone era boomer principles when winning the game is what should matter above all?
Click to expand...

"The Spirit of the Game" is an unwritten code of ethics, older that the Boomer generation and upheld by players in many nations. I have heard it invoked by Australians, South Africans, West Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans who sometimes say "That's not cricket".

For example, when England bowled Fast Leg-Theory at Australia in 1932/3 the Australians complained that The Spirit of the Game had been breached. Lawfully England had done nothing wrong. But Fast Leg-Theory was later outlawed as unsportsmanlike.
 
Robert said:
Though tolerated by most players. It’s a culture that grew up outside the Laws. I remember watching non-strikers backing up by two yards at the end of OD matches and nobody Mankaded them. It would have been considered ungentlemanly.

Walsh stopped in his delivery stride and warned Qadir for backing up in a WC match, and everyone praised Walsh’s gentlemanly conduct.

The solution for other teams is to start Mankading India, rather than let them get away with backing up too.
Click to expand...

The solution is not to leave until the ball leaves the bowlers hand, they teach you this in juniors.
 
Robert said:
"The Spirit of the Game" is an unwritten code of ethics, older that the Boomer generation and upheld by players in many nations. I have heard it invoked by Australians, South Africans, West Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans who sometimes say "That's not cricket".

For example, when England bowled Fast Leg-Theory at Australia in 1932/3 the Australians complained that The Spirit of the Game had been breached. Lawfully England had done nothing wrong. But Fast Leg-Theory was later outlawed as unsportsmanlike.
Click to expand...

Don Bradman (in A Farewell to Cricket):

“Mankad was scrupulously fair that he first of all warned Brown before taking any action. There was absolutely no feeling in the matter as far as we were concerned, for we considered it quite a legitimate part of the game.”

1.jpg
 
James said:
I think in the end it was a fair run out and I look forward to England repaying India with similar run outs in the future.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I too would expect nothing less and if an Indian batter gets out in this manner - they'd not just be stupid but would also become a butt of all jokes given how only India has been in spotlight for executing this till now.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
Release means ball releasing from hand. You can't run out players after that. Batsman should not have head start. Period. Even an inch. This is exploited by batsmen when they bat with a tailender a lot.
Click to expand...

Non striker backing up from behind the wicket can save them from these type of run outs.. I thing Warne used to that in ipl..
 
Indians always do it.. Shameful act... They are so desperate to win that they do whatever it takes like pressurising umpires, mankad etc etc..
THIS, by no means is "CRICKET". Its allowed legal cheating
 
KingOfPakBreakfast said:
However, there’s a thing called sportsmanship. It’s not required, it’s what elevates a competitive activity to a ‘sport’, I.e. something more.
Click to expand...

Sometimes umpires wrongly given out, did any team callback those batsmen anytime (sometime they dont have the review)? Also majority of batsman dont walk after knicking it.. So called spirit of cricket dont apply there..
 
Robert said:
"The Spirit of the Game" is an unwritten code of ethics, older that the Boomer generation and upheld by players in many nations. I have heard it invoked by Australians, South Africans, West Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans who sometimes say "That's not cricket".

For example, when England bowled Fast Leg-Theory at Australia in 1932/3 the Australians complained that The Spirit of the Game had been breached. Lawfully England had done nothing wrong. But Fast Leg-Theory was later outlawed as unsportsmanlike.
Click to expand...

If the practice of mankading doesn't sit well with the authorities then they ought to ban it just as they did with Bodyline back in the day. If not , then it's perfectly lawful and invoking spirit of the game everytime your team is losing is simple laziness and nothing more.
Btw didn't see the English fans up in arms a few years back when they won the world cup on account of some ridiculous technicality that robbed NZ off the win. Where was spirit of the game then?
 
Saurav said:
It has changed from Ashwin's days. Now batter has to stay in crease till the ball is actually released
Click to expand...

The MCC have still clarified previously though that deliberately delaying your action so the batsmen leaves the crease is considered against the spirit of the game.
 
TM Riddle said:
Btw didn't see the English fans up in arms a few years back when they won the world cup on account of some ridiculous technicality that robbed NZ off the win. Where was spirit of the game then?
Click to expand...

There's a clear difference between making a decision to do something and something happening outside of your control.
 
FdflNI4WIAEpSux


Seventeen hours after Charlie Dean was “run out” by Deepti Sharma of India she warns non striking batter Linsey Smith of Northern Diamonds to stay in her ground. It got big chuckles from the watching spectators.
 
TM Riddle said:
If the practice of mankading doesn't sit well with the authorities then they ought to ban it just as they did with Bodyline back in the day. If not , then it's perfectly lawful and invoking spirit of the game everytime your team is losing is simple laziness and nothing more.
Btw didn't see the English fans up in arms a few years back when they won the world cup on account of some ridiculous technicality that robbed NZ off the win. Where was spirit of the game then?
Click to expand...

Are we in 1922 or 2022?

What you're hearing is just "opinions" of few English pundits and NOT some authority.
 
Mamoon said:
Her bat was 2-3 inches inside the crease when the bowler entered the delivery stride. Hence, Mankading did not apply in this situation.

The bowler stopped while she was still inside the crease. She was waiting for her to leave the crease and then ran her out.

The non-striker was watching the batter as she left the crease assuming that the bowler is about to release the ball.

Was it poor awareness by the non-striker, sure it was, but if the non-striker is still inside the crease when the bowler stops in an attempt to Mankade it is definitely an underhand tactic.

It was an example of a premeditated Mankading. Is it illegal? No. Should it be discouraged? In my opinion, yes.
Click to expand...

Why [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] . Premeditated mankading .. occurs if non strikers are premeditated to leave the crease before the ball has left the bowlers hand .

The batter at non striker clearly is 2 steps out at time of bail dislodgement- see video . It’s similar to stumped . Wicketkeeper takes bail off if u are out of crease attempting to hit the ball and u miss . Should the wicketkeeper give a warning ?

Rules are rules . Batsmen can bat left handed / right handed , can have runners if injured on field , have bigger bats , have flatter pitches and white balls times two .. all while stealing a single by being two steps out before ball is bowled ?


Your rational seems to imply bowler is cheating . I would recommend that batsmen should stop cheating and stay in crease .

Well done sharma
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Went back to the full match replay. Charlie Dean was leaving her crease early starting with her 2nd ball at the non-striker's end in the 18th over. Ball still in bowler's hand. Dean is never looking at the bowler to see if/when the ball has been released. Basic lack of awareness. <a href="https://t.co/yRokOftidg">pic.twitter.com/yRokOftidg</a></p>— Peter Della Penna (@PeterDellaPenna) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeterDellaPenna/status/1573979090784223234?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 25, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
HitWicket said:
The MCC have still clarified previously though that deliberately delaying your action so the batsmen leaves the crease is considered against the spirit of the game.
Click to expand...

That's for the umpires to judge and they declared it out.
 
docteurmanish said:
Why [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] . Premeditated mankading .. occurs if non strikers are premeditated to leave the crease before the ball has left the bowlers hand .

The batter at non striker clearly is 2 steps out at time of bail dislodgement- see video . It’s similar to stumped . Wicketkeeper takes bail off if u are out of crease attempting to hit the ball and u miss . Should the wicketkeeper give a warning ?

Rules are rules . Batsmen can bat left handed / right handed , can have runners if injured on field , have bigger bats , have flatter pitches and white balls times two .. all while stealing a single by being two steps out before ball is bowled ?


Your rational seems to imply bowler is cheating . I would recommend that batsmen should stop cheating and stay in crease .

Well done sharma
Click to expand...

There's the argument that backing up too far is against the spirit and that delaying your action to wait for the non-striker to leave their crease is against the spirit (as confirmed by the MCC) but neither player is cheating because what they've both done is legal.
 
Smbhayi said:
Sometimes umpires wrongly given out, did any team callback those batsmen anytime (sometime they dont have the review)? Also majority of batsman dont walk after knicking it.. So called spirit of cricket dont apply there..
Click to expand...

I don’t want to get into what aboutisms. I would prefer that teams call back batsmen who clearly were wrongly given out. I also hate batsmen not walking.

However, justifying one wrong by highlighting other wrongs doesn’t address the issue.

I think fair play has to be drilled in by captains of all countries. This whole win at all costs makes a mockery of the game, whoever exercises that approach.
 
HitWicket said:
The umpires don't judge if something is within the spirit of the game or not because it doesn't change their decision.
Click to expand...

They do. It's their job to ensure game is played within right spirit. That's why we see them sometimes asking captain to withdraw the appeal.

Nothing of that sort happened here.
 
Mamoon said:
Her bat was 2-3 inches inside the crease when the bowler entered the delivery stride. Hence, Mankading did not apply in this situation.

The bowler stopped while she was still inside the crease. She was waiting for her to leave the crease and then ran her out.

The non-striker was watching the batter as she left the crease assuming that the bowler is about to release the ball.

Was it poor awareness by the non-striker, sure it was, but if the non-striker is still inside the crease when the bowler stops in an attempt to Mankade it is definitely an underhand tactic.

It was an example of a premeditated Mankading. Is it illegal? No. Should it be discouraged? In my opinion, yes.
Click to expand...

Not enough. Before she finishes her follow you can gain a significant advantage. Depends on the type of bowlers. Guys like Ashwin takes a lot of time to deliver from that position. If the batsman is leaving the crease before the bowler releases that are also sneaky. Just that we consider that as normal which shouldn't be the case. The reason I have strong opinions about this is that we practiced while playing. Never leave the crease until the ball is released. She can stop, and pause whatever she wants to do. But batsmen must not wander outside completely ignoring the fact the bowler is yet to release the ball. That is disrespectful. The only reason that doesn't come under criticism is because it has become a norm. It is okay to gain few inches of advantage. I am going to repeat the same question that Alex Hales asked. How hard it is for a nonstriker to keep the bat grounded until the bowler releases the ball. Batsmen escape from run outs by a few millmieters time and again. If you enforce this that number will reduce. there will be more run outs. If we start micro analyzing we can call pretty much anything and everything as "not with in the spirit". "Hey keeper is waiting for the batsman to lift the leg. That is not in good spirit" as many players can lose their balance and lift their leg. Everything can be sneaky. including throwing the ball at the end towards which an injured or tired player is running.
 
Anything done within the rules is completely right.

You play to win the game and not win the hearts of commies, crowds and fans, those who are bitter can remain bitter. :inti
 
Saurav said:
While we're at it, lets introduce warnings for front foot no ball,stumpings etc as well
Click to expand...

We can get pedantic about laws, but in actual game sense, the games starts when the bowler bowls the ball. Thus stumpings and no balls are fair game and don’t need warnings. A mankading happens before a ball is bowled, when the game is inactive. It’s well within the rules blah blah etc.

However normalising mankading will surely ruin the flow of the game. We all would prefer batsmen to be bested by the skills and strategy of the bowler, rather than by pure opportunism.

I’m also sure that once we see India being the victim of mankading in enough high profile situations, the ICC will revert to the rule I’ve suggested.
 
Was the non striker going for a stroll around the NW postcode?
 
Saurav said:
They do. It's their job to ensure game is played within right spirit. That's why we see them sometimes asking captain to withdraw the appeal.

Nothing of that sort happened here.
Click to expand...

The umpires cannot enforce anything regarding the spirit of the game (unless it also violates the laws of the game).

Whether the bowler deliberately delayed her action in this case is debatable. But if they did then it's against the spirit of the game as the MCC clarified in the Buttler-Ashwin mankad situation.
 
England are the last team to be talking about spirit of cricket given how they won the 2019 Cricket World Cup.

The honourable thing would have been to refuse to win on such a stupid technicality and share the trophy with NZ
 
KingOfPakBreakfast said:
We can get pedantic about laws, but in actual game sense, the games starts when the bowler bowls the ball. Thus stumpings and no balls are fair game and don’t need warnings. A mankading happens before a ball is bowled, when the game is inactive. It’s well within the rules blah blah etc.

However normalising mankading will surely ruin the flow of the game. We all would prefer batsmen to be bested by the skills and strategy of the bowler, rather than by pure opportunism.

I’m also sure that once we see India being the victim of mankading in enough high profile situations, the ICC will revert to the rule I’ve suggested.
Click to expand...

The game starts when bowler starts his/her run-up. The batsmen have no right to leave crease before ball is released.

Is freehit earned by batsmen due to his skill? What skill is there from bowler when he bowls a full toss and its caught etc.

The rule is already there and has been there for decades,its people who cry about 'spirit' beyond the laws.
 
KingOfPakBreakfast said:
We can get pedantic about laws, but in actual game sense, the games starts when the bowler bowls the ball. Thus stumpings and no balls are fair game and don’t need warnings. A mankading happens before a ball is bowled, when the game is inactive. It’s well within the rules blah blah etc.

However normalising mankading will surely ruin the flow of the game. We all would prefer batsmen to be bested by the skills and strategy of the bowler, rather than by pure opportunism.

I’m also sure that once we see India being the victim of mankading in enough high profile situations, the ICC will revert to the rule I’ve suggested.
Click to expand...

I bet my bottom dollar this law will not change. Getting a head start is very very easy. Only way you can stop people from doing without hurting the "spirit of the game" is by penalizing the batting side with 5 runs for every time they wander. This way both parties will be happy.
 
SM1989 said:
England are the last team to be talking about spirit of cricket given how they won the 2019 Cricket World Cup.

The honourable thing would have been to refuse to win on such a stupid technicality and share the trophy with NZ
Click to expand...

If the rules weren't what they were then Stokes likely wouldn't have played the shot that he did on the last ball. Because of that sharing the trophy would make little sense because we don't know what would have happened if the rule was different.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
I bet my bottom dollar this law will not change. Getting a head start is very very easy. Only way you can stop people from doing without hurting the "spirit of the game" is by penalizing the batting side with 5 runs for every time they wander. This way both parties will be happy.
Click to expand...

Call it 1 short, it gives absolutely no benefit to the batting side then.
 
HitWicket said:
The umpires cannot enforce anything regarding the spirit of the game (unless it also violates the laws of the game).

Whether the bowler deliberately delayed her action in this case is debatable. But if they did then it's against the spirit of the game as the MCC clarified in the Buttler-Ashwin mankad situation.
Click to expand...

They can and do try to make captains withdraw their appeal. Happened in Collingwood-Elliot incident, Dhoni-Hussey incident etc.

It's for the umpires to see whether bowler delayed the action and if they did, simple declare it not out.
 
SM1989 said:
England are the last team to be talking about spirit of cricket given how they won the 2019 Cricket World Cup.

The honourable thing would have been to refuse to win on such a stupid technicality and share the trophy with NZ
Click to expand...

Yes that’s what elite sportspeople are definitely going to do… they are going to refuse to accept a major trophy that they won in accordance with the tournament rules.
 
Kohli said:
Ashamed to be an Indian. Idk why our Indian folks love using cheap tactics to be successful
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, this game was a dead rubber and India won the series already. I don't support this mankading but lol at using cheap tactics to be successful. Indian cricket (men & women) in a perfect state with no issues at all.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Funny to see so many English guys being poor losers. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Runout?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Runout</a> . <a href="https://t.co/OJOibK6iBZ">pic.twitter.com/OJOibK6iBZ</a></p>— Virender Sehwag (@virendersehwag) <a href="https://twitter.com/virendersehwag/status/1573758804734332928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Saurav said:
They can and do try to make captains withdraw their appeal. Happened in Collingwood-Elliot incident, Dhoni-Hussey incident etc.

It's for the umpires to see whether bowler delayed the action and if they did, simple declare it not out.
Click to expand...

As human beings the umpires can discuss an appeal with a captain if they want, but they cannot make players withdraw their appeal just because it is against the spirit of the game. They also couldn't declare the mankad as not out even if the action was delayed, unless the arm had already reached the point of release. Feel free to quote any law/playing condition that states otherwise but I'm telling you now that won't be able to find one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BouncerGuy
"We're hurt by the result, hurt as a nation, but the beauty of the game is it always gives you another chance": Shan Masood
Replies
75
Views
2K
rpant_gabba
rpant_gabba
BouncerGuy
Ian Smith: Pakistan cricket a shadow of its formerly proud self
Replies
10
Views
267
RyanRyan10
RyanRyan10
The Bald Eagle
"Pakistan has recently lost some matches, but they should not be underestimated as a weaker team": Shubman Gill
Replies
7
Views
490
Devadwal
Devadwal
The Bald Eagle
[Beyond The Boundary] A full-fledged operation, not surgery, is the only hope for the survival of ailing Pakistan cricket
Replies
39
Views
36K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
MenInG
[VIDEO] Saj: "Pakistan cricket is like that relationship you want to end but you just can't walk away from"
Replies
13
Views
1K
James
James
Back
Top