Mankad?

[Booney]

The Mankad is not the great offence in that story, Booney.

I didn't know how to word it, to add the effect. I understand.

[The Bedge]

The Mankad is not the great offence in that story, Booney.

The mullet?

[Booney]

The Mankad is not the great offence in that story, Booney.

The mullet?

Oh no, it was sensational.

[bennymacca]

That short-run call isn't a bad idea.
But another tough thing for the umpire to officiate - they can barely catch no balls, imagine them trying to watch the bowler's front foot and the batsman leaving the crease.

Obviously you couldnt do it for the close ones - but most people agree that it doesnt really matter if the batter is 2 inches out of his crease, but it does matter if he is 2 metres. So i feel like an umpire could pick it up

That two inches mattered in the U19WC

Yeah, and I don't agree with that.

[Mythical Creature]

So if a bloke leaves his crease 2 inches early, take off for a quick single and there is a direct hit and the batsmen is found to have made it to his crease by 1 inch, should he then be out? Obviously not, but in that instance those 2 inches mattered.

If its in the rules then you are allowed to do it, pretty simple.

Similar to tennis in a way with foot faults.

[FlyingHigh]

A few years I remember hearing at the international levels they were removing or discouraging the Mankad because it was felt unfair on a a batsman if he could then be given out on TV replay by a couple of centimetres. The cynical could say it was because they thought it might make the limited over games more exciting by creating higher scoring, such as turning ones into twos.

If the laws/rules say the batsmen must stay in his crease until the bowler bowls, then it is a legitimate form of dismissal and it is a good thing for the spirit of the game to for a bowler to give a warning first,

When we were kids we were that competitive we were always trying to Mankad other kids (after a warning), but can see now that was probably inappropriate for ten year olds.

[Dogwatcher]

The Mankad is not the great offence in that story, Booney.

I didn't know how to word it, to add the effect. I understand.

Not that.
That.

[Dogwatcher]

That short-run call isn't a bad idea.
But another tough thing for the umpire to officiate - they can barely catch no balls, imagine them trying to watch the bowler's front foot and the batsman leaving the crease.

Obviously you couldnt do it for the close ones - but most people agree that it doesnt really matter if the batter is 2 inches out of his crease, but it does matter if he is 2 metres. So i feel like an umpire could pick it up

That two inches mattered in the U19WC

Yeah, and I don't agree with that.

Which shows, at some point, it will matter.

[The Bedge]

Not that.
That.

I picture more like this...

booney.jpg (48.24 KiB) Viewed 555 times

[Lightning McQueen]

That two inches mattered in the U19WC

An extra 2 inches matters a lot.

[The Bedge]

That two inches mattered in the U19WC

An extra 2 inches matters a lot.

It's the difference between ooh and OOOOH

[Booney]

Not that.
That.

I picture more like this...

booney.jpg

Actually, middle part, more like this :

[am Bays]

Actually, middle part, more like this :

Belle of the ball at McMahons Salisbury....

[MatteeG]

Keep in mind, mankads in indoor cricket not quite so frowned upon.

Yep, par for the course at Morphett Vale ICA.

[Rik E Boy]

@Rik E Boy can vouch for this one.

Indoor cricket, circa 1995, Camden Park ICA.

Young Boon, reasonable case of white line fever and I might add a glorious mullet, takes advantage of lets call him "challenged" opponent who was half way down the track most balls and mankads the bloke for -5 runs. Keep in mind, mankads in indoor cricket not quite so frowned upon. Well, this one was, as the opponent was in some respects challenged the team lambasted young Boon for the act. Geez, did they give it to me. Oh well, it's only 5 runs.

The Hellions go into bat, red face for Boon, much, much laughter from his team mates as the opponent duly returns the favor and catches young Boon sneaking a lead.

Even worse. We get a mankad in a grand final, same venue, same team. Before I go into bat I opine in a discreet manner 'I say my good chums, how it possible to be mankaded in a game of such importance what?'. Needless to say when the captain himself was dismissed this way for one of the few times in his career, much hilarity ensued. DOH.

regards,

REB

[RB]

I feel like mankad is a pretty crappy thing to do

You mean even when they've been warned?

If you've been warned, what the hell do you expect the bowler to do? Getting a head start is blatant cheating. I don't understand how anyone could be silly enough to be out of their crease after being warned, I mean it is the most bewilderingly dumb thing to do, let alone expect not to be dismissed for it.

[Grahaml]

No problem with it whatsoever. The way the rule is written the batsman has to leave well before the ball is bowled, so you can't claim being "faked" out. In fact, it's got to be pretty blatant. I've always felt that getting a head start at the non striker's end was far akin to cheating and unless there is a threat of being run out, there's basically nothing you can do. No need for a warning either. That's backyard cricket. Bowlers don't get a warning for overstepping, the batsman doesn't get a warning on a stumping and a fielder doesn't get a warning for stepping over the boundary. Interesting to note that Bradman himself advocated the Mankad as a fair dismissal.

[Lightning McQueen]

No problem with it whatsoever. The way the rule is written the batsman has to leave well before the ball is bowled, so you can't claim being "faked" out. In fact, it's got to be pretty blatant. I've always felt that getting a head start at the non striker's end was far akin to cheating and unless there is a threat of being run out, there's basically nothing you can do. No need for a warning either. That's backyard cricket. Bowlers don't get a warning for overstepping, the batsman doesn't get a warning on a stumping and a fielder doesn't get a warning for stepping over the boundary. Interesting to note that Bradman himself advocated the Mankad as a fair dismissal.

Did you watch the incident?

[FlyingHigh]

Agree LM. Made my comments above before I had seen the incident.
This wasn't a bowler getting into stride spotting a batsman cribbing, it was a premeditated, deliberate running through the stumps on the chance of catching the batsman out.

[Lightning McQueen]

Agree LM. Made my comments above before I had seen the incident.
This wasn't a bowler getting into stride spotting a batsman cribbing, it was a premeditated, deliberate running through the stumps on the chance of catching the batsman out.

Exactly my thoughts, the batsman wasn't attempting to crib, it was instinctive using the bowlers footsteps as a guide to when he could leave the crease.
The fact that it needed to go upstairs emphasised this, very poor sportmanship, they were even asked whether they wanted to go through with the appeal.