http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-03/controversial-mankad-decides-u19-world-cup-quarter-final/7135258?section=sport
I don’t think he did it right.
My understanding of a mankad was that the bowler had to bring his arm over in the bowling action before knocking off the bails. It may have changed but I’m pretty sure that was the rule in the middle of last century.
Under the laws of cricket, the bowler is able to run out a batsman “before entering his delivery stride
“The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker,” Law 42, section 15, for Fair and Unfair Play states in The Laws of Cricket.
Arts said:
Under the laws of cricket, the bowler is able to run out a batsman “before entering his delivery stride“The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker,” Law 42, section 15, for Fair and Unfair Play states in The Laws of Cricket.
Well it must have changed then.
Just as well I asked youse guys before ringing TDT and The Daily Mail.
Seems like everyone agrees with you, though.. More rules is what we need
15. Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over.
If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible.
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play/
This document says the same as above
http://www.rdca.com/Documents/ump_downloads/LawsofCricketeffective1Oct2013-fullcopy.pdf
Also stating
PLEASE FIND TO FOLLOW THE CURRENT REDRAFT OF THE LAWS OF CRICKET 2000 CODE (5TH EDITION 2013)
ITEMS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW REPRESENT CHANGES
FROM THE 4TH EDITION OF THE LAWS
Section 15 is not highlighted… So any changed occurred before 2000
Social media seems to be looking at a very old version
Oh I see, people are outraged because they think it’s ‘just not cricket’. Except that it is…
If you can’t mankad then what is to stop the non-striker from wandering halfway down the pitch during the delivery?
furious said:
If you can’t mankad then what is to stop the non-striker from wandering halfway down the pitch during the delivery?
That is the purpose of the rule, yes.
In the middle of last century the cricket etiquette was to give the batsman a warning first.
“Listen sport, you keep trying to steal a single by wandering down the wicket I’ll mankad you”
The etiquette is for the bowler to provide a friendly warning that it’s probably not a good idea for the batter to be wandering down the wicket before he makes an attempt to run the batter out.
In the same way it’s etiquette for the batter to ‘walk’ before being given out by the umpire if he knows that he was out.
Cricket is full of these sorts of “gentlemanly” unwritten rules.
I personally don’t have any issue with what happened…
Yeah. We’re still allowed to bowl underarm, ok?
This one seems fair enough to me.
diddly-squat said:
I personally don’t have any issue with what happened…
Yes, but you are harsh and ruthless.
Arts said:
diddly-squat said:I personally don’t have any issue with what happened…
Yes, but you are harsh and ruthless.
On one hand, a player can hardly complain when the rules are enforced. The nonstriker was not trying to steal a march but the onus really is on him to make sure he remains in his crease.
On the other hand this dismissal is certainly unusual since 999 times out of 1000 an umpire will not give a first time mankad out and will call dead ball and give the batsman a warning, even if he is obviously trying to gain advantage.
See “Mistakes that Vinoo we were making “ by Straylight Run
Arts said:
Oh I see, people are outraged because they think it’s ‘just not cricket’. Except that it is…
Correct. The opportunity to mankad occurs many times. If the bowler attempts to mankad the same non-striker many times, that part just isn’t cricket. For a start, the bowler has to change stride mid delivery stride to do it most times.
Arts said:
diddly-squat said:I personally don’t have any issue with what happened…
Yes, but you are harsh and ruthless.
Arts said:
diddly-squat said:I personally don’t have any issue with what happened…
Yes, but you are harsh and ruthless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAf0QnLFS7Q
Maybe the solution is for boards to announce that there will be no protection from mankads anymore, no warnings. So that coaches will just drill it in that you must make damn sure you’re in your crease.
dv said:
Maybe the solution is for boards to announce that there will be no protection from mankads anymore, no warnings. So that coaches will just drill it in that you must make damn sure you’re in your crease.
once the bowler is committed, the opportunity to leave the crease is easy.
dv said:
Maybe the solution is for boards to announce that there will be no protection from mankads anymore, no warnings. So that coaches will just drill it in that you must make damn sure you’re in your crease.
Arts said:
diddly-squat said:I personally don’t have any issue with what happened…
Yes, but you are harsh and ruthless.
He likes football, and porno, and books about war…
diddly-squat said:
Arts said:
diddly-squat said:I personally don’t have any issue with what happened…
Yes, but you are harsh and ruthless.
wookiemeister said:
diddly-squat said:
Arts said:Yes, but you are harsh and ruthless.
why do you have to keep bringing ruth into this?
Zaltz says:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/968937.html
A mankad traditionally occurs when the bowler diverts from his run-up to run out a non-striking batsman as the cheeky little blighter tries to gain an unfair head start by creeping down the pitch before the ball has been released. The only slight procedural issues in the Paul-Ngarava incident were that the batsman had not crept down the pitch, and the bowler had, philosophically, ceased to be a “bowler”, given that he evidently had no intention of bowling the ball.
Ngarava was not seeking, or gaining, an advantage. He ended up approximately half a millimetre out of his ground, having been in that ground as Paul reached the point where cricket traditionalists would have expected him to bowl. This was not, therefore, I would argue, a mankading. It was an entirely new form of dismissal, a watershed moment for cricket. It has brought the dummy, a popular staple of other sports such as football and rugby, into the moribund repertoire of bowling.
Perhaps we should not query the morality of the incident – cricket and ethics are uncomfortable bedfellows (as is so often the case with former lovers who have endured a long drawn-out break-up). The spirit of cricket is a mystical phantom of no fixed abode, who must be getting rather tired of being summoned up at opportune moments, having been flatly ignored for ages both on the field of play and in cricket’s administrativo-economico-political machinations.
It therefore seems a little unreasonable to expect teenagers to set a moral example in a sport in which ethics operate on such an intermittent, selective and unpredictable basis. Even if mankading your opponent for the decisive wicket in a crucial match when he was barely even backing up, let alone tootling prematurely down the wicket is so obviously wrong that most unborn babies would not do it. Instead, we should glory in the laws of the game being correctly applied. Even if we think the law in question need a major tweak and a stern telling-off.