Moeen Ali: Ban the Mankad

[zen]

9 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

You could have said everyone cheats to some extent. You used 2 egs.that don't actually make the case you wanted to make. Anyways, this is tangential to what was being discussed. 

 

Some unnecessary see this issue as Ind v others. To me, it is a cricket related issue, encompassing multiple teams. 

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by zen

[gattaca]

It’s a no ball if a bowler steps over and rule should be fair to bowler too in a sport heavily favoring batsman. If you ban mankad I might stand in half way the  pitch and score runs 

[vvvslaxman]

1 hour ago, rollingstoned said:

I had this discussion the other day in the womens thread. This is one of those instances that it ends up in a bit of a grey area and when the ball is dead or not dead, so also what the object is of dismissing a batsman. I admit my bias in that im not a fan of it coz I would hate it if this was used against us at a decisive stage of some game and am not used to it for all the time I've watched the sport. Even in gully cricket no one dismisses someone for being a mm outside the crease before the ball is bowled. 

As per rules of the game Stokes boundary in that wc final off an overthrow was legit but hardly anyone agreed with it at that time and he himself asked if it could be deducted. Not sure if any other game has such room for interpretation so that a large part of how the game is played is regulated by spirit rather than codified law. 

 

In gully cricket i rarely see batsman having a head start.  Infact one of the first thing we were taught in school.

[vvvslaxman]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Being that the game of cricket is becoming (or has become) highly professionalized and monetized, it is time to minimize "spirit" and maximize objectivity.  DRS is a great example of how this can be done - it is never going to be perfect, but it can keep getting closer to that point and is a heck of a lot better than just a pair of eyes and ears.  Boundary and stump cams are an another example.  

 

It is time to revisit Mankading, the boundary rule etc.  For sure there is an ICC rules committee that can do this with a week's worth of work.  Someone has to petition, push and proactively get it done.  Until then, let's just follow the letter of the law objectively and equally for all teams. 

 

Personally, I don't have an Indo-centric viewpoint and don't care who is the Mankader and who is doing the Mankading.  I will support it 100% even if Suryakumar Yadav is the batsman backing up too far and freakkin Javed Miandad is the bowler who Mankaded him.  I suspect most others on this board are the same way.   

 

Yes it is a highly professional sport now. At the highest level we have to make sure all the laws are followed. For all the other dismissals we don't bring up the "spirit" argument. It is not like all the cricketers are   ANTI-backingup-runout.  Several cricketers are for it. If you look at this incident vast majority of crying is from English players not outside. Even that is not 100%.  Hales, Panesar are clearly against this "spirit" talk. Shamsi, Gillespie quiet a few Aussies are in favor this type of dismissal. 

[vvvslaxman]

57 minutes ago, gattaca said:

It’s a no ball if a bowler steps over and rule should be fair to bowler too in a sport heavily favoring batsman. If you ban mankad I might stand in half way the  pitch and score runs 

 

Which is what one should try to do lol Just dash towards non striker and see what they do.

[vvvslaxman]

1 hour ago, rollingstoned said:

There will be accidental runouts for eg where one of the runners may fall and the fielding captain will try to see to it that the player is not dismissed for it. Recently Imam ul haq got out after he left the crease coz everyone thought the ball died and the keeper appealed after which he was Given out which also created a debate. Previously handling the ball was one such dismissal which needed clarification leat it be gamed. the spirit of the game more than a moral imperative is a way to use common sense where rules may not suffice. If the object of the fielding team is to dismiss the batsman, the spirit behind that also has to be pondered upon so that even when mistakes and deception - the fair kind Ie being bamboozled -  are accounted for he is adjudged to have been dismissed in a way that is not conning. 

 

It is imperative batsman being aware of laws of cricket. One example is Inzamam standing on the middle of pitch and played a proper defensive shot against throw by Dravid at the stumps. Given out for obstructing the field. When he was later interviewed he said he was not aware of this. So ignorance cannot be an excuse. It is as dumb as Sehwag sometimes holding his bat to his body and run instead of using it to extend his reach. In this case this English cricketer wandered out of the crease several times before being run out eventually. So it is not a freak event. It is willful ignorance.

Edited September 30, 2022 by vvvslaxman

[zen]

"Ashwining" is cheating as seen below:

 

 

[rollingstoned]

8 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

It is imperative batsman being aware of laws of cricket. One example is Inzamam standing on the middle of pitch and played a proper defensive shot against throw by Dravid at the stumps. Given out for obstructing the field. When he was later interviewed he said he was not aware of this. So ignorance cannot be an excuse. It is as dumb as Sehwag sometimes holding his bat to his body and run instead of using it to extend his reach. In this case this English cricketer wandered out of the crease several times before being run out eventually. So it is not a freak event. It is willful ignorance.

Re Mankading it's not a case of ignorance, the batters all know that rule since it's not something obscure. So too the other cases which is more a case of carelessness than going against the 'spirit' of the game.  The point is a little more nuanced than just defaulting to saying coz the rulebook doesn't forbid it it should and will become a legitimate form of dismissal and missing it. 

[Mariyam]

5 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Ya know, the more I read/hear about this, the more strongly I feel like "Mankading" should be used with pride by India supporters.  Yes, here was a guy who knew the rules, knew how to apply them and made sure others don't cheat.  Perhaps, we can use the term "Englanding" to bats(wo)men who leave their crease early and get an early advantage.

 

Commentary:

19.6 - This is it, guys and gals.  Aus need one run to tie the match and take it to the superover.  Can India stop them?  Will Maxi go for maximum or try to take a single to finish it off?  The field closes in.  Smith the non-striker.  Siraj, charging in ... wait what is that ...  Smith is ENGLANDING ... ENGLANDING ... clearly as the rare daylight in London ... he is 3 ft ahead ... clearly ENGLANDING ... did he take lessons from Jossie?  Moeen?  Or from the Dean herself?  ...   

Some how the English cricket fraternity come across as sore losers in this episode.

 

if Mankading is against the spirit of the game, what about the fact that England won the WC on the backs of an obscure rule.

 

So much for 'spirit of the game'.

[vvvslaxman]

1 minute ago, rollingstoned said:

Re Mankading it's not a case of ignorance, the batters all know that rule since it's not something obscure. So too the other cases which is more a case of carelessness than going against the 'spirit' of the game.  The point is a little more nuanced than just defaulting to saying coz the rulebook doesn't forbid it it should and will become a legitimate form of dismissal and missing it. 

 

Call it penalizing. Captains even are prohibited from playing a match for over-rate. They don't micro analyze each scenario. They just enforce it. Recent rule says if you don't finish your 19th over by certain time you cannot have an extra fielder in 20th over.  Even if you miss it by a second the rule is enforced. We accept it as it is because it is the same for all.  Similarly this type of dismissal is same for all. There are no 'feelings" involved here. Courtney Walsh totally trivialized this backing up by not running Qadir out. If it was treated as an offence in the first place we won't be talking about "sportsmanship".  Kapil dev warned Peter kirsten many times. He kept strolling out casually. He eventually said enough is enough and ran him out.  

[BacktoCricaddict]

8 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Some how the English cricket fraternity come across as sore losers in this episode.

 

if Mankading is against the spirit of the game, what about the fact that England won the WC on the backs of an obscure rule.

 

So much for 'spirit of the game'.

Apparently that is okay because Ben Stokes accepted it with reluctance :eyeroll:

 

[Vilander]

6 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Ya know, the more I read/hear about this, the more strongly I feel like "Mankading" should be used with pride by India supporters.  Yes, here was a guy who knew the rules, knew how to apply them and made sure others don't cheat.  Perhaps, we can use the term "Englanding" to bats(wo)men who leave their crease early and get an early advantage.

 

Commentary:

19.6 - This is it, guys and gals.  Aus need one run to tie the match and take it to the superover.  Can India stop them?  Will Maxi go for maximum or try to take a single to finish it off?  The field closes in.  Smith the non-striker.  Siraj, charging in ... wait what is that ...  Smith is ENGLANDING ... ENGLANDING ... clearly as the rare daylight in London ... he is 3 ft ahead ... clearly ENGLANDING ... did he take lessons from Jossie?  Moeen?  Or from the Dean herself?  ...   

 

 

very good post. Intelligent.

 

hate for mankading is partly hate in India and Indian cricket. 
 

Backing up should be called buttlering. And trying to cheat in cricket but being hypocritical about being called out should be called moeening. 
 

good one. And don’t bother posters like zen they normally have some anti player agenda. 

[rollingstoned]

8 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Call it penalizing. Captains even are prohibited from playing a match for over-rate. They don't micro analyze each scenario. They just enforce it. Recent rule says if you don't finish your 19th over by certain time you cannot have an extra fielder in 20th over.  Even if you miss it by a second the rule is enforced. We accept it as it is because it is the same for all.  Similarly this type of dismissal is same for all. There are no 'feelings" involved here. Courtney Walsh totally trivialized this backing up by not running Qadir out. If it was treated as an offence in the first place we won't be talking about "sportsmanship".  Kapil dev warned Peter kirsten many times. He kept strolling out casually. He eventually said enough is enough and ran him out.  

Which didn't happen in a vacuum and which is why you are missing the point. Rules definitely have their place but time tested practices of a game which are not necessarily codified in a rulebook are not something you can just outright ignore since they have a direct bearing on what practically happens out there on the field. 'Spirit of the game' is like a defacto soft arm of regulation which is followed by the players themselves over decades due to 1 reason or another. I am not against it per se but just think it should stay so that it is not misused brazenly by the batsmen while differing on what you could call opportunism for waiting to run batsmen out who are not really gaming it so to speak. Nor am i against changes because a rule always existed since rule changes can and do happen all the time, especially if there is an understanding of the rationale behind why some rule came to be and if it is still relevant eg not letting an injured batsman have a runner which was removed only recently or allowing batsman to be adjudged lbw if they change grip to play a switch hit so also giving the bowler more generous margin so that the ball is not called a wide. If someone says tomorrow that why benefit of doubt must always go to a batsman also for instance, some rudimentary understanding must exist for why that is there in the first place.

I don't have a position on the issue that i intend to stick to militantly but was just trying to give a differing viewpoint while being conscious of my own biases like I have stated above.

[vvvslaxman]

4 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

Which didn't happen in a vacuum and which is why you are missing the point. Rules definitely have their place but time tested practices of a game which are not necessarily codified in a rulebook are not something you can just outright ignore since they have a direct bearing on what practically happens out there on the field. 'Spirit of the game' is like a defacto soft arm of regulation which is followed by the players themselves over decades due to 1 reason or another. I am not against it per se but just think it should stay so that it is not misused brazenly by the batsmen while differing on what you could call opportunism for waiting to run batsmen out who are not really gaming it so to speak. Nor am i against changes because a rule always existed since rule changes can and do happen all the time, especially if there is an understanding of the rationale behind why some rule came to be and if it is still relevant eg not letting an injured batsman have a runner which was removed only recently or allowing batsman to be adjudged lbw if they change grip to play a switch hit so also giving the bowler more generous margin so that the ball is not called a wide. If someone says tomorrow that why benefit of doubt must always go to a batsman also for instance, some rudimentary understanding must exist for why that is there in the first place.

I don't have a position on the issue that i intend to stick to militantly but was just trying to give a differing viewpoint while being conscious of my own biases like I have stated above.

 

Touche. But I am all for following and enforcing the law as long as it exists. It is simple there are many dismissals are a matter of inches. An inch above the ground, an inch inside the boundary, an inch outside the crease, an inch over the crease. an inch wider. This dismissal is very much similar to it.  Time tested practices were determined by mostly English. Looking at the exhaustive research of one of the twitter guy it is proven some batsmen repeatedly violate this as they know they can get away in the name of "spirit of the game".  One of the reason why you cannot bring in morality in here is because a batsman can violate this throughout the match. Every single ball he can violate knowing he can get away.  In street cricket you don't get 22 yards. So having a head start is a massive advantage. It is mandatory you stay in the crease.  I have played only for school/college. Never backed up too far. My bat would always be inside the crease until he delivers. That is the pretty much the case with all the players at that level. This is why it is shocking to see this being violated blatantly at the highest level.

[vvvslaxman]

English players (except a few), commies, supporters  indirectly put pressure on those who have legitimate reason to run out batsman this way.  Hope Indian captains don't succumb to this pressure tactics in case if one of our players does it. 

[rollingstoned]

18 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Touche. But I am all for following and enforcing the law as long as it exists. It is simple there are many dismissals are a matter of inches. An inch above the ground, an inch inside the boundary, an inch outside the crease, an inch over the crease. an inch wider. This dismissal is very much similar to it.  Time tested practices were determined by mostly English. Looking at the exhaustive research of one of the twitter guy it is proven some batsmen repeatedly violate this as they know they can get away in the name of "spirit of the game".  One of the reason why you cannot bring in morality in here is because a batsman can violate this throughout the match. Every single ball he can violate knowing he can get away.  In street cricket you don't get 22 yards. So having a head start is a massive advantage. It is mandatory you stay in the crease.  I have played only for school/college. Never backed up too far. My bat would always be inside the crease until he delivers. That is the pretty much the case with all the players at that level. This is why it is shocking to see this being violated blatantly at the highest level.

Close dismissals that happen when the ball is live are a different kettle of fish and for good reason. It doesn't matter that these practises were determined by the English, they acquired some legtimacy due to how long others followed them too which is why the debate is happening. Why can you not run a batsman out who is at the strikers end if he stands outside his crease before the ball is bowled for eg? You see where this is going? You will need tedious interpretations of when play is dead and live just to circumvent such circumstances where common sense can do a much better job. The mechanism already exists to warn and remind the batsman if he is doing it unconsciously to get back in his crease to even dismissing him, the days when non striker used to start dashing the moments before the ball is even delivered especially in the death overs are a thing of the past which i remember happening even in 90s and 00s. 

Even in underarm cricket ie well under 22 yards in India and other places I've played you'd be mocked as a cheat if you consciously tried to dismiss the non striker like this. Doesn't mean you can walk halfway down the pitch because of it though, that level of understanding is at least there so no one abuses it.

Edited October 1, 2022 by rollingstoned

[vvvslaxman]

11 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

Close dismissals that happen when the ball is live are a different kettle of fish and for good reason. It doesn't matter that these practises were determined by the English, they acquired some legtimacy due to how long others followed them too which is why the debate is happening. Why can you not run a batsman out who is at the strikers end if he stands outside his crease before the ball is bowled for eg? You see where this is going? You will need tedious interpretations of when play is dead and live just to circumvent such circumstances where common sense can do a much better job. The mechanism already exists to warn and remind the batsman if he is doing it unconsciously to get back in his crease to even dismissing him, the days when non striker used to start dashing the moments before the ball is even delivered especially in the death overs are a thing of the past which i remember happening even in 90s and 00s. 

Even in underarm cricket ie well under 22 yards in India and other places I've played you'd be mocked as a cheat if you consciously tried to dismiss the non striker like this. Doesn't mean you can walk halfway down the pitch because of it though, that level of understanding is at least there so no one abuses it.

 

Actually You could do that. Only this year it was changed

 

 

But bowlers will no longer be allowed to attempt to run out the striker by advancing down the wicket before entering their delivery stride and throwing at the stumps. If they make such an attempt, it will be called a dead ball.

[vvvslaxman]

20 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

Close dismissals that happen when the ball is live are a different kettle of fish and for good reason. It doesn't matter that these practises were determined by the English, they acquired some legtimacy due to how long others followed them too which is why the debate is happening. Why can you not run a batsman out who is at the strikers end if he stands outside his crease before the ball is bowled for eg? You see where this is going? You will need tedious interpretations of when play is dead and live just to circumvent such circumstances where common sense can do a much better job. The mechanism already exists to warn and remind the batsman if he is doing it unconsciously to get back in his crease to even dismissing him, the days when non striker used to start dashing the moments before the ball is even delivered especially in the death overs are a thing of the past which i remember happening even in 90s and 00s. 

Even in underarm cricket ie well under 22 yards in India and other places I've played you'd be mocked as a cheat if you consciously tried to dismiss the non striker like this. Doesn't mean you can walk halfway down the pitch because of it though, that level of understanding is at least there so no one abuses it.

 

This is slippery slope.  Any such run out will look deliberate. If you are at the receiving end you are never going to say "he has the right to run me out".   There is no "natural way" running out a batsman who is backing out. Rules have to be black and white. There should be no gray area. In this case i don't see a gray area which is why umpire always gives it out. I am yet to come across mankading instance where umpire says Not out.  Instead of mocking the bowler, they should be mocking the batsman for utter lack of awareness. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by vvvslaxman

[rollingstoned]

10 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

In this case i don't see a gray area which is why umpire always gives it out. I am yet to come across mankading instance where umpire says Not out

Grey area is not to be determined by the umpires, they will follow the rulebook in most if not all instances. Even where their discretion is required it is coz the rulebook determined it to be the case ie soft signal. 

There is no 'natural' way to run a batsman out like this - and the number of times Mankading has happened which you can count on one hand proves this - because the bowler is almost always intent on what's happening at the other end so unless there is a brazen attempt to take advantage of the same which the rules have now circumvented it is always going to look like you were looking for it instead of focusing on getting the ball down the other end. 

This kind of discussion is probably because of the natural handicap batsman face in cricket now that i think about it, which is probably why they are given some leeway here.

[vvvslaxman]

11 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

Grey area is not to be determined by the umpires, they will follow the rulebook in most if not all instances. Even where their discretion is required it is coz the rulebook determined it to be the case ie soft signal. 

There is no 'natural' way to run a batsman out like this - and the number of times Mankading has happened which you can count on one hand proves this - because the bowler is almost always intent on what's happening at the other end so unless there is a brazen attempt to take advantage of the same which the rules have now circumvented it is always going to look like you were looking for it instead of focusing on getting the ball down the other end. 

This kind of discussion is probably because of the natural handicap batsman face in cricket now that i think about it, which is probably why they are given some leeway here.

The rarity of this dismissal can be put down to normalizing of this backing out violation. it is okay to venture outside the crease before the ball is being delivered. Harry Brooks in the recent series against Pakistan wandered outside the crease every single time. Alex Hales, Salt were found to wait until the ball was released every single time. Basically one person is following the law. Other one is not. How is it possible both are doing the right thing.  You don't really have to wait for eternity to dismiss a batsman like Butler. He does it almost every ball when the striker is a lesser batsman. He doesn't do it when the striker is a decent batsman. So for years non strikers have been abusing this oversight. Some still follow it. This is why it is important to set an example. Looking the other way is not the solution.  Just like one inch short or over can penalize you in other areas of cricket, it doesn't mater how much ground he gains. Even one inch is enough. England started this habit of attaching stigma to those who practice this.  Piers Morgan "Indian women cricket team should be ashamed of themselves".  Eion Morgan said about Ashwin "I can’t believe what I’m seeing!! @IPL Terrible example to set for young kids coming through. In time I think Ashwin will regret that."    Seriously?   Setting example is frequently getting head starts according to Morgan. Not punishing such player.