SA Footy

Anyone else of the understanding that you had to complete your action before being able to mankad someone? ie - roll the arm over and then you could have them.

Yes

West Indies once a world cricket power have shown how low they have sunk.

Booney wrote:Anyone else of the understanding that you had to complete your action before being able to mankad someone? ie - roll the arm over and then you could have them.

The rule has changed, you have to be anywhere in your delivery stride.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:Anyone else of the understanding that you had to complete your action before being able to mankad someone? ie - roll the arm over and then you could have them.

The rule has changed, you have to be anywhere in your delivery stride.

Right, so it's a rule that has recently been looked at which, for mine, means the rule is in play. Sure, it might go against the "spirit" of the game but you could argue appealing like your life depends on it for an LBW when the ball is clearly missing the stumps could be, in some ways, be seen as not in the "spirit" of the game.

Always thought it had to be before you rolled your arm over. Not sure whether that means start of the arm action or perhaps past your ear.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:Anyone else of the understanding that you had to complete your action before being able to mankad someone? ie - roll the arm over and then you could have them.

The rule has changed, you have to be anywhere in your delivery stride.

I think it was changed to stop bowlers trying to trick the batsman. Having said that, the bowler is well within his rights to stop mid action if the batsman is creeping.

I don't have a problem with the law. It is pretty simple. Don't leave your crease at the non strikers end until the ball has left the bowlers hand.

Haven't read all the posts on here but i have very strong thoughts on the topic.

A mankad is no more unsportsmanlike than it is for a batsmen to be out of his crease before a bowler has let the ball go.

There is no law that says a batsmen must 'back up', infact the rules state a batsmen can be out if he has left the crease so why do batsmen insist on creeping further and further up.

If a bowler is going to be disallowed a wicket for having their foot half a centre metre over the line than the non striker should stay put, at the end of the day as long as you have momentum from backing up there is no reason you have to pass the crease line.

Batsmen have got ridiculous with backing up to the point that sometimes their a quarter of the way down the pitch.

At international level there should be no need to give a warning. If his out his out (do keepers give batsmen a warning before going for a stumping)

At amateur level a warning is probably the polite thing to do and should stay in place.(i did this in a recent tight one dayer where the non striker was further up the pitch than i was before i had let the ball go, i considered me giving him a warning more sportsman like than the 5-10 runs he had just nicked from having a 3m head start.

I have no problems with the mankad.

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

No but a keeper doesnt need to give him a warning to stump him and it would never be considered to be brought back if he was stumped.

bennymacca wrote: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

Impossible for an umpire to make a call! it would affect all his other decision making.

No different to having to make the mankad decision

Bowler should be congratulated

One of the first things you are taught say a kid is to stay in your crease when the bowlers comes in to bowl...

Non issue

bennymacca wrote:No different to having to make the mankad decision

They dont these days at international level, they refer it the decision to the third umpire.

There not going to check every ball on a third umpire just in case of the short run.

MatteeG wrote:

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

Yep, par for the course at Morphett Vale ICA.

As was it at Stepney. Managed to get myself Mankaded first ball of a new season.

Non strikers backing up a mile down the pitch is far more prevalent in international cricket these days than that of a bygone era. Back then I would have said a warning should have been mandatory (unless it was someone like Sarfraz), now I'm not so sure.

Don Bradman didn't have an issue with it so neither should we!

I'm not going to use ol' Braddles as too much of a conscience barometer.

heater31 wrote:Don Bradman didn't have an issue with it so neither should we!

He didn't wear a helmet either.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:Anyone else of the understanding that you had to complete your action before being able to mankad someone? ie - roll the arm over and then you could have them.

The rule has changed, you have to be anywhere in your delivery stride.

Not quite - the batsman can leave his crease legally as soon as the bowler enters his delivery stride. My understanding is that the 'delivery stride' commences at back foot landing.

In this case his back foot had landed prior to him taking off the bails so it shouldn't have been given out IMO.

Tony Clifton wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Booney wrote:Anyone else of the understanding that you had to complete your action before being able to mankad someone? ie - roll the arm over and then you could have them.

The rule has changed, you have to be anywhere in your delivery stride.

Not quite - the batsman can leave his crease legally as soon as the bowler enters his delivery stride. My understanding is that the 'delivery stride' commences at back foot landing.

In this case his back foot had landed prior to him taking off the bails so it shouldn't have been given out IMO.

He never went into his delivery stride, he just ran past and took the bails off, didn't he?