SA Footy

In light of the U/19 WI v Zim being decided on a Mankad ...

In the schoolgirl's national championships last month a girl from WA mankaded an SA girl without warning, it was crazy that the WA coach allowed it, funny thing is, they did it to a Victorian girl the next day.

I'm all for the mankad and don't believe there should even be a warning. The non striker is blatantly cheating by cribbing down the pitch

Is a batsman cheating when he takes a stance outside his crease before the ball is delivered?
Love cricket's contradictions.

Dogwatcher wrote:Is a batsman cheating when he takes a stance outside his crease before the ball is delivered?
Love cricket's contradictions.

A bowler get's penalised for "cribbing" over the line, but not a batsman - Another contradiction .. They seem unavoidable

Batsmen these days have everything in their favour.
Flat wickets
Bigger bats
Smaller boundaries
Batting powerplays

I think there should be a warning for the mere fact that I leave my crease when I hear the bowler land on his delivery stride, I'm not cheating and if he decides to not bowl the ball and dislodge the bails instead I am out,, if I was leaving my crease early it's fair play to get me me out via mankad.

I was umpiring a final few years ago when there was a recess in the mankad rule.
The non-striker kept cribbing, the bowler was getting shitty and asked what he could do?
I said "Just don't bowl the ball, at 3:45 whatever overs you've bowled to them, we change over and you face the same amount".
The non-striker then arked up at me for suggesting such a tactic telling me he can do what he wants as it's in the rules, it was just after that I suggested that he not get hit on the pads for the remainder of his innings.

Dogwatcher wrote:Is a batsman cheating when he takes a stance outside his crease before the ball is delivered?
Love cricket's contradictions.

Said batter would run the risk of being stumped though

Lightning McQueen wrote:it was just after that I suggested that he not get hit on the pads for the remainder of his innings.

ooooh you bitch!

I reckon one warning by the bowler and its fair game.

"Leave your crease again and you can keep walking"

If someone has the guts to try a Mankad, after giving a warning, I have no problem with it (although I wouldn't do it myself). Although, I'd hate to see it happen in grass-roots cricket.
I think it would take a lot of courage to do it, though.

Incidentally, the man whom the Mankad is named after was actually very sporting. He warned Bill Brown of his intentions if he kept wandering outside of his crease. Brown ignored the warnings and a new cricketing term was created. I'm pretty certain he was dismissed the same way in a previous match, as well. Given the age of cricket, it's amazing it took so long for the mode of dismissal to get a name.

Jim05 wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Is a batsman cheating when he takes a stance outside his crease before the ball is delivered?
Love cricket's contradictions.

Said batter would run the risk of being stumped though

He could, but it's still not considered cheating (not that I think it should be).
It's also a funny scenario that some people consider cribbing before a delivery is cheating, while others consider Mankading to be borderline cheating.

I feel like mankad is a pretty crappy thing to do, but so is backing up a long way.

What if the batters are warned, and then called for a short run if they continue to back up too far?

That seems to be a pretty decent compromise imo, and would it wouldnt take long to change their behaviour.

There needs to be some sort of penalty for backing up too far, but as LM pointed out, even batters not cheating can be done mankad so i feel like that is too harsh

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.

Dogwatcher wrote: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

MatteeG wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:it was just after that I suggested that he not get hit on the pads for the remainder of his innings.

ooooh you bitch!

Yep. not on my watch LOL!!!!!!

@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.

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

bennymacca wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote: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