A new Womankad

[SqueakyVoice]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/63023469
It's  a bit of a shame, India looked like they'd  win and the batter looked quite upset.
I've only played a bit of cricket, but I know I wouldn't leave the crease until the ball was hit.

[jeremyp]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/63023469
It's  a bit of a shame, India looked like they'd  win and the batter looked quite upset.
I've only played a bit of cricket, but I know I wouldn't leave the crease until the ball was hit.

This really winds me up.

People talk about how unsporting it is but they ignore the fact that the batsman is trying to gain an illegal advantage. There is an argument that, if the bowler tries to trick the batsman by pretending to release the ball, then that is unfair and I agree with it and it's already covered by the existing laws. But this case does not fall into that category: the bowler was in her delivery stride but she hadn't begun the arm action.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

This really winds me up.

People talk about how unsporting it is but they ignore the fact that the batsman is trying to gain an illegal advantage. There is an argument that, if the bowler tries to trick the batsman by pretending to release the ball, then that is unfair and I agree with it and it's already covered by the existing laws. But this case does not fall into that category: the bowler was in her delivery stride but she hadn't begun the arm action.

I agree.

If it is allowed within the rules, then no-one can complain if they get out this way. Nor should they suggests it to be bad sportmanship (sportswomanship?) if someone is playing within the rule.

Either it is allowed, and then get with the programme and recognise this is a legitimate dismissal mode and don't back up before the bowler has bowled. Or change the laws of the game so it is no longer a legitimate dismissal, the consequence being that non strikers could back up as far as they like with impunity.

[ProfessorDavey]

People talk about how unsporting it is but they ignore the fact that the batsman is trying to gain an illegal advantage.

Not sure if it is an illegal advantage. I think you can back up but then you risk being mankaded. That's the risk a batter takes if they back up out of their crease before the ball has been bowled.

[jeremyp]

Not sure if it is an illegal advantage.

That's how former umpire John Holder described it in the discussion on the Mankad in the most recent "Ask the Umpire" (part of the Test Match Special podcast).

I think you can back up but then you risk being mankaded. That's the risk a batter takes if they back up out of their crease before the ball has been bowled.

I've just checked the laws and the situation is specifically enumerated under law 41.16 which is in the section on unfair play. I think that is the basis under which John Holder called the non-strike batter being out of their ground "illegal". Maybe he could have said "unfair" instead.

Note that, as of the 1st October, 41.16 will be moved to section 38 which is all about run-outs. From that point on, the non strike batsman being out of their ground as the bowler bowls will no longer be considered unfair but just the same as any other possible run out.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's how former umpire John Holder described it in the discussion on the Mankad in the most recent "Ask the Umpire" (part of the Test Match Special podcast).

I've just checked the laws and the situation is specifically enumerated under law 41.16 which is in the section on unfair play. I think that is the basis under which John Holder called the non-strike batter being out of their ground "illegal". Maybe he could have said "unfair" instead.

Note that, as of the 1st October, 41.16 will be moved to section 38 which is all about run-outs. From that point on, the non strike batsman being out of their ground as the bowler bowls will no longer be considered unfair but just the same as any other possible run out.

If something is unfair rather than illegal I wonder what the sanction is?

The change in the laws seems sensible - back up if you want but at your own risk. Wonder if we will see an increase in Mankad dismissals.

My only concern is for bowlers, particularly fast bowlers. Surely they must risk injury if they pivot from a delivery stride to pinging off the bails.

[jeremyp]

If something is unfair rather than illegal I wonder what the sanction is?

For most for of unfair conduct the sanctions are explicitly set out in section 41 of The Los of Cricket.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/unfair-play

non-striker out of their ground is somewhat unusual in that the fielding team (i.e. the bowler) has to call it out rather than the umpire.

The change in the laws seems sensible - back up if you want but at your own risk. Wonder if we will see an increase in Mankad dismissals.

I agree it is a sensible change. I don't see any reason why it should be more egregious than any other form of run out.

I think there might be an increase in Mankads at first, but batsmen will soon adjust.

My only concern is for bowlers, particularly fast bowlers. Surely they must risk injury if they pivot from a delivery stride to pinging off the bails.

I think most of them have made their mind up about doing the Mankad thing fairly early in their run up. It's probably a non issue, but we'll see.