The Mankad: why?

[jeremyp]

Cameroon v Uganda: Bowler Mankads four batters

It's time to do away with this nonsense that it is unsporting to run out the non striking batsman when they are backing up. It's specifically allowed within the laws of cricket and it's not exactly sporting of the batsman to set off down the pitch before the ball has left the bowler's hand knowing that it's so unsporting to get him or her out that way and therefore won't happen.

[ProfessorDavey]

Cameroon v Uganda: Bowler Mankads four batters

It's time to do away with this nonsense that it is unsporting to run out the non striking batsman when they are backing up. It's specifically allowed within the laws of cricket and it's not exactly sporting of the batsman to set off down the pitch before the ball has left the bowler's hand knowing that it's so unsporting to get him or her out that way and therefore won't happen.

I agree.

Firstly I don't like this notion that something is within the laws, but you shouldn't do it - if you shouldn't do it then change the laws.

But I'm also quite comfortable with the Mankad - effectively this is running out a batter who has chosen to take a risk decision to back up too far and is doing that to gain an advantage. So the response to that attempt to gain a (completely lawful) advantage is the risk of being run out by a Mankad. If you remove the risk of run out then there is nothing to stop the non striking batter backing up as far as they like to gain a great advantage.

So if you ban the Mankad you'd need to have some new and robust sanction to prevent a batter backing up outside their crease. Perhaps the equivalent of a bowler no ball - so one run removed if the non striker is outside their crease at the point of delivery. But that seems draconian and unnecessary - better to keep it as it is with the batter risking a Mankad run out if they back up too far, and indeed to encourage bowlers to consider this more as an option. That would force the non striking batter back into his or her crease.

[jeremyp]

Not sure I agree.

Firstly I don't like this notion that something is within the laws, but you shouldn't do it - if you shouldn't do it then change the laws.

But I'm also quite comfortable with the Mankad - effectively this is running out a batter who has chosen to back up too far and is doing that to gain an advantage. So the response to that attempt to gain a (completely lawful) advantage is the risk of being run out by a Mankad. If you remove the risk of run out then there is nothing to stop the non striking batter backing up as far as they like to gain a great advantage.

So if you ban the Mankad you'd need to have some new and robust sanction to prevent a batter backing up outside their crease. Perhaps the equivalent of a bowler no ball - so one run removed if the non striker is outside their crease at the point of delivery. But that seems draconian - better to keep it as it is with the batter risking a Mankad run out if they back up too far, and indeed to encourage bowlers to consider this more as an option. That would force the non striking batter back into his or her crease.

So obviously, my original post was not clear. You express my position exactly and yet you think you disagree with me. I don't think anything in the laws of cricket needs to change. The only thing that needs to change is this idea that the Mankad is somehow too unsporting to do.

[ProfessorDavey]

So obviously, my original post was not clear. You express my position exactly and yet you think you disagree with me. I don't think anything in the laws of cricket needs to change. The only thing that needs to change is this idea that the Mankad is somehow too unsporting to do.

Sorry Jeremy - I've just rewritten my post as I'd misinterpreting your post. I think we are in agreement - the Mankad is allowed and should be considered a legitimate part of the game.

[jeremyp]

Sorry Jeremy - I've just rewritten my post as I'd misinterpreting your post. I think we are in agreement - the Mankad is allowed and should be considered a legitimate part of the game.

No need to apologise. If it's possible to misinterpret a post, the blame lies at least partly, if not wholly, with the writer who failed to make his intent clear.

[SteveH]

You're probably right, but I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

[ProfessorDavey]

You're probably right, but I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

The Mankad (named after one of the first people to do it back in 1947) is where a bowler runs up but when he or she reaches their delivery stride does not release the ball but instead whips off the bails at the bowlers end as the non striking batter has backed up out of their crease and is therefore run out.

It is allowed in the rules, but seen as unsporting. But then backing up excessively is also within the rules but also considered unsporting. So the easy way is to accept the Mankad - a batter can back up outside their crease (to try to gain an advantage) but they risk being run out. Seems fair to me.