Cricket rules February 25, 2012

Mankading is no grey area

Cricket needs to find a way to eliminate these anomalies because it is a game decided by the smallest of margins
46

Forgive me for continuing to bang on about the same topic but if international cricketers (and the system that governs them) keep repeating the same behaviours, perhaps it's necessary to keep bringing the same matter up for discussion. In my most recent blog, we discussed the Mankading incident involving Lahiru Thirimanne and whether the liberties that batsmen are taking constitute cheating or gamesmanship.

Yesterday in Hobart, Sri Lanka were quick to remind Michael Hussey that backing up too far was a global phenomenon and not unique to Sri Lanka. Despite Hussey looking a bit bemused when the umpire gave him a friendly warning via Mahela Jayawardene, video evidence clearly showed that Hussey was indeed guilty of stealing a few centimetres, by accident or design.

Today in Wellington, the issue was elevated from the sublime to the ridiculous when Lonwabo Tstotsobe was no-balled for overstepping the line and the video replay showed that a part of his heel was actually behind the line, although to be fair, it might have looked different from where the umpire was standing. This tiny fraction of a centimetre was enough to cost him a "free hit" which can prove to be a costly mistake. What was interesting though was that the replay showed the batsman, Kane Williamson, backing up a long way out of his crease at the time that Tsotsobe's foot was deemed to be a centimetre too short for the umpire's liking. So whilst the bowler is penalised for being a fraction over the line, the batsmen can be a few feet past the line and there is very little that the game can do to stop this blatant cheating.

Why is the bowler not given a warning that his foot was over the line in much the same way that the batsmen are expected to be warned when they are deliberately stealing a few precious centimetres? I'm afraid I no longer subscribe to the theory that it is accidental. It's happening too often for it to be accidental. In an era where run outs are adjudicated on by the third umpire and it often comes down to a tiny margin, almost a video frame, there must be some way to ensure that batsmen aren't taking the mickey.

Maybe for every run out involving the non-striker, they should pan back to the bowler's end and calculate the distance that the batsman was in front of the crease and deduct it from the distance by which he made his ground. After all, if you take a short run, even by the tiniest of margins, you have that run deducted from your score. So what's the difference between a short run and a batsman deliberately starting with an unfair advantage?

Cricket needs to find a way to eliminate these anomalies because it is a game decided by the smallest of margins. The difference between a nick and a play and miss is too small to even measure by a method other than Hot Spot or Snicko. We waste a lot of time on replays trying to figure out if a fielder on the boundary grazed the rope with any part of his body. Run outs and stumpings are sometimes decided by a split video frame. LBW decisions referred to the third umpire are subject to a fine line as to where the ball pitched. No-balls are called on the tightest of margins. Just about everything in the game relies on wafer-thin margins and yet, this aspect of the game remains open to blatant abuse.

Most other professional sports don't allow deliberate flouting of the lines of demarcation. Tennis, athletics, golf and a host of other sports that I haven't even thought of would surely not allow a competitor to deliberately be a foot over the line or off the mark. Can you imagine a golfer moving his putt a foot closer to the hole? Or a long jumper being allowed to leap from a long way past the mark? Or a rugby player being granted a try when he grounds the ball way in front of the line?

Perhaps the answer lies in dispensing with the notion of warning the batsman before you run him out. No other aspect of the game requires a warning before a penalty is incurred. It was a quaint and gentlemanly tradition in an era when backing up too far may well have been an absent-minded action but I'm too much of a cynic to think that this is not a deliberate ploy to steal an unfair advantage. It happens too often for it to be an accident. If it is an accident, it makes cricket a poorly administered sport that allows it to continue without some remedy. That's not acceptable when the rules of the sport rely on precision to the nth degree.

Michael Jeh is an Oxford Blue who played first-class cricket, and a Playing Member of the MCC. He lives in Brisbane

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Sharuk on June 30, 2012, 10:59 GMT

    Hi Kendra. For an 11 year old I would start with a bigger trgeat to begin with, maybe use 4 cones in a box shape but you can use your imagination. Ok .for a right handed batsman the off-stump is described as the stump that is furthest to the batsmans right. You have 3 stumps off, middle and leg (so that would be right, middle and left respectively to the batsman). This is the opposite way around for a left-hander, the off-stump becomes the one that is furthest to the batsman's left.So where do you place the cones? Place your heel against the off-stump and take approximately 5 steps towards the bowler. That's probably a good place to start bowling Hope that helps, if it's not clear then get back to me. Cheers, Daniel

  • abhishek nigam on March 14, 2012, 12:27 GMT

    amazing observing point sir, but the rules from the inception of this game has been working for favoring the batsman. it is very common that most people have remind or like the matches in which the match considering high scores, i m sorry but its my experience as a common person from all. this game are mostly meant for high scoring and to maintain the image of the game the committee made the rules which provide maximum profile to batsmen and a very minor profit to bowler as he has 10 men army accompany him.

    if certain observations kept in mind and panel members will made some rules which favor bowler than this game lost its identity,then what remain?this point also arising another question that for giving the some profit for the bowlers will cricket game lost it's identity?.....

    this game is on hype sir i think the game demands to favor batsmen and maintain the viewer's attention in enthusiastic favor...

  • Anonymous on February 29, 2012, 11:12 GMT

    brilliantly precise! the distance that the batsman is out of the crease should be deducted in calculating both run outs and short runs

  • Henrik on February 29, 2012, 9:03 GMT

    The rules of cricket are complicated, but people who make living of it should able to grasp them and know them by heart. They should know, that if they back up too far they can be run-out, and they should know that you don't leave the field before the umpire called 'over'. Crowds should not boo the team, that sticks to the rules, but the batsman who neglects them.

    If the non-striker can get run-out because the bowler blocks his path (for no obvious reason other than blocking it) and this is in the rules and 'spirit' of the game, why should his false starts be protected?

  • Keith.W on February 27, 2012, 23:32 GMT

    ok guys let's cut the crap, read & re-read kev's posting of 26/02. There's a clear definition of the law for mankading and the umpires who are supposed to oversee the game should be doing their job as true proffessionals do. i.e. presuming they have totally familiarised themselves with all of the rules of cricket apply the rule as it stands! Umps you have to start really earning your money!

  • PD Priyadarshan on February 27, 2012, 19:27 GMT

    I quite agree. The non-striker starting off on a potential run before the ball is bowled is in no way acceptable. It should be made clear in the playing conditions that the non-striker can be run-out without any warning, and the bowlers should just do it if needed.

    Consider the other scenario where the batsman drives the ball straight at the wicket at the bowler's end, the bowler just gets a finger on the ball (trying to stop it), the ball goes on to hit the wicket with the non-striker outside his crease. In this case the non-striker is run-out, even though the bowler didn't really throw the ball at the wicket (and the ball hitting the wicket was just an accident). Technically, it is a run-out, as if the bowler intentionally deflected the ball on to the wicket (which may be true in some cases). So, if that is an acceptable way for the non-striker to be out, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be run-out for starting the run before the ball is bowled.

  • Williams on February 27, 2012, 16:57 GMT

    Agree completely. If you don't want people to do something, make a rule that you can't do it. Otherwise let them do it!

    Running batsmen out for backing up too much is a clear cut situation where the batsman is gaining advantage by breaking a rule. Running them out does not violate any spirit to begin with. It violates all kinds of things only when you do it against the English.

    Hiding behind 'spirit' when things are going against you is the oldest trick used by the English and lately Australians. When they do something unsportsmanlike or borderline, it is being tough and hard nosed. When others do it, it is unsportsmanlike and should not be done.

  • Sree on February 27, 2012, 14:09 GMT

    To me its simple. If its in the rules, its out. Or scrap the rule. And then the non striker might as well stand at the other end!! Mankading is actually bowler's stumping.

  • Clavers on February 27, 2012, 0:12 GMT

    I think the rules' requirement that the bowler must remove the bails before entering his delivery stride make it quite difficult enough for the bowler.

    There is quite a technique to this and it can be practised. The rules define the delivery stride as commencing when the back foot strikes the ground and ending when the front foot strikes the ground. So the best technique to foil the batsman is to land on the front foot rather than the back foot after the leap and remove the bails. Thus the bowler can claim that the delivery stride had not been entered. Just be careful not to roll your front ankle.

  • Sureshrao on February 26, 2012, 21:58 GMT

    Why cant the third umpire or match referee interfere and reduce the runs when how it is done for one shot runs. What is then the job of third umpire or match referee. Just watch the nonsense at the ground and dont care about the spirit of the game.

  • Sharuk on June 30, 2012, 10:59 GMT

    Hi Kendra. For an 11 year old I would start with a bigger trgeat to begin with, maybe use 4 cones in a box shape but you can use your imagination. Ok .for a right handed batsman the off-stump is described as the stump that is furthest to the batsmans right. You have 3 stumps off, middle and leg (so that would be right, middle and left respectively to the batsman). This is the opposite way around for a left-hander, the off-stump becomes the one that is furthest to the batsman's left.So where do you place the cones? Place your heel against the off-stump and take approximately 5 steps towards the bowler. That's probably a good place to start bowling Hope that helps, if it's not clear then get back to me. Cheers, Daniel

  • abhishek nigam on March 14, 2012, 12:27 GMT

    amazing observing point sir, but the rules from the inception of this game has been working for favoring the batsman. it is very common that most people have remind or like the matches in which the match considering high scores, i m sorry but its my experience as a common person from all. this game are mostly meant for high scoring and to maintain the image of the game the committee made the rules which provide maximum profile to batsmen and a very minor profit to bowler as he has 10 men army accompany him.

    if certain observations kept in mind and panel members will made some rules which favor bowler than this game lost its identity,then what remain?this point also arising another question that for giving the some profit for the bowlers will cricket game lost it's identity?.....

    this game is on hype sir i think the game demands to favor batsmen and maintain the viewer's attention in enthusiastic favor...

  • Anonymous on February 29, 2012, 11:12 GMT

    brilliantly precise! the distance that the batsman is out of the crease should be deducted in calculating both run outs and short runs

  • Henrik on February 29, 2012, 9:03 GMT

    The rules of cricket are complicated, but people who make living of it should able to grasp them and know them by heart. They should know, that if they back up too far they can be run-out, and they should know that you don't leave the field before the umpire called 'over'. Crowds should not boo the team, that sticks to the rules, but the batsman who neglects them.

    If the non-striker can get run-out because the bowler blocks his path (for no obvious reason other than blocking it) and this is in the rules and 'spirit' of the game, why should his false starts be protected?

  • Keith.W on February 27, 2012, 23:32 GMT

    ok guys let's cut the crap, read & re-read kev's posting of 26/02. There's a clear definition of the law for mankading and the umpires who are supposed to oversee the game should be doing their job as true proffessionals do. i.e. presuming they have totally familiarised themselves with all of the rules of cricket apply the rule as it stands! Umps you have to start really earning your money!

  • PD Priyadarshan on February 27, 2012, 19:27 GMT

    I quite agree. The non-striker starting off on a potential run before the ball is bowled is in no way acceptable. It should be made clear in the playing conditions that the non-striker can be run-out without any warning, and the bowlers should just do it if needed.

    Consider the other scenario where the batsman drives the ball straight at the wicket at the bowler's end, the bowler just gets a finger on the ball (trying to stop it), the ball goes on to hit the wicket with the non-striker outside his crease. In this case the non-striker is run-out, even though the bowler didn't really throw the ball at the wicket (and the ball hitting the wicket was just an accident). Technically, it is a run-out, as if the bowler intentionally deflected the ball on to the wicket (which may be true in some cases). So, if that is an acceptable way for the non-striker to be out, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be run-out for starting the run before the ball is bowled.

  • Williams on February 27, 2012, 16:57 GMT

    Agree completely. If you don't want people to do something, make a rule that you can't do it. Otherwise let them do it!

    Running batsmen out for backing up too much is a clear cut situation where the batsman is gaining advantage by breaking a rule. Running them out does not violate any spirit to begin with. It violates all kinds of things only when you do it against the English.

    Hiding behind 'spirit' when things are going against you is the oldest trick used by the English and lately Australians. When they do something unsportsmanlike or borderline, it is being tough and hard nosed. When others do it, it is unsportsmanlike and should not be done.

  • Sree on February 27, 2012, 14:09 GMT

    To me its simple. If its in the rules, its out. Or scrap the rule. And then the non striker might as well stand at the other end!! Mankading is actually bowler's stumping.

  • Clavers on February 27, 2012, 0:12 GMT

    I think the rules' requirement that the bowler must remove the bails before entering his delivery stride make it quite difficult enough for the bowler.

    There is quite a technique to this and it can be practised. The rules define the delivery stride as commencing when the back foot strikes the ground and ending when the front foot strikes the ground. So the best technique to foil the batsman is to land on the front foot rather than the back foot after the leap and remove the bails. Thus the bowler can claim that the delivery stride had not been entered. Just be careful not to roll your front ankle.

  • Sureshrao on February 26, 2012, 21:58 GMT

    Why cant the third umpire or match referee interfere and reduce the runs when how it is done for one shot runs. What is then the job of third umpire or match referee. Just watch the nonsense at the ground and dont care about the spirit of the game.

  • andrew schulz on February 26, 2012, 10:40 GMT

    What you miss in this article is that one of the main reasons batters are sneaking ground at the non-strikers end before the ball is delivered is that it was made legal for some considerable time. I think we need an unwritten understanding now that mankading is absolutely fine even without a warning. Provided, of course, that the batter has not been baulked by the bowler pretending to bowl, and set off because he thought the ball had been delivered.

  • kev on February 26, 2012, 6:50 GMT

    It's not that complicated. The rules are crystal clear on this issue and they have been for decades. The only people complicating this are the anti-Mankad brigade who insist on using the spirit of the game garbage as a defense for batsmen who cheat by walking 3 or 4 metres out of their crease so that by the time the bowler bowls the ball they can get to the other end faster. I also don't buy the garbage that some non-striker batsman doesn't know that they've walked out of their crease. If you've played cricket for as long as these guys then you would know where your off stump is, where the fielders are and you certainly would know whether you were in the crease or not.

  • ramamurthy s on February 26, 2012, 5:50 GMT

    well said jeh!! u were spot on!!

  • DropBear on February 26, 2012, 2:49 GMT

    There is no doubt that sneaking a head start certainly unfairly advantages the batting team. Suggestion, The third umpire can adudicate and advise field umpires between overs of how many "SHORT" runs will be deducted from the score. At any time the fielding side can appeal (maybe 5 per innings) to get the batsmen to return to their original ends to face the next ball if they feel an unfair advantage of a better batsman facing has been gained. This would allow the game to procede without delay, except limited number of correction appeals, batting side would certainly change tactics if they kept loosing a number of runs from time to time, and make better use of an official that hardly gets involved in the game.

  • Orang on February 26, 2012, 0:42 GMT

    Spot on mate, the Indians took the soft option and still got creamed by all and sundry, including captains Jayawardene and Clarke,gratuitously taking the moral high ground. The fact that the Indians have been playing lousy cricket is a different matter; Sri Lanka would have won in a canter without the "Thirimanning".

  • Golden Lion King on February 26, 2012, 0:35 GMT

    Had India won the game would you make this much fuss about it? NO, NO and NO. So please stop writing rubbish and move and tell India to try and win games. I have lot of Indian friends and fans they all are disappointed in their performance not this rubbish.

    @sateesh - there is no need to send this link to Mahela, he said well enough. I guess you don't get it do you?

  • stevest on February 26, 2012, 0:20 GMT

    Well written Michael. In these days of limited over cricket where "backing-up" is taken to an extreme level, the time is tight to instigate such a position.

  • Sudhakar on February 25, 2012, 23:04 GMT

    Nice one, When ICC made that rule then why the hell umpires again consulting the field team captain about this decision. Someone can say it is a new rule so batsmen doesn't know that. It's their fault. The rule seems to be unfair from the batsmen point of view but it makes some justice to bowler especially when batsmen trying to take those close singles. Why bowler needs to warn the batsmen about this mankading..? I watched that SL Vs Ind game, even after that incident Thirimanne keep on doing the same mistake. If there is a rule then why the hell everyone talking about spirit of the game.

  • karthik on February 25, 2012, 22:10 GMT

    I agree. Even in baseball, the pitcher can throw to any base to run him out!. Mankad - is a wrong name to it. It is an insult to Indians and they have allowed it to contibue so long!!!! It should be just run out!

  • Madhusudan on February 25, 2012, 21:36 GMT

    I completely agree. This should not be allowed to happen. It has nothing to do with "spirit of cricket" and is simply cheating. Batsman is obviously trying to go that far so that chances of run out are reduced when trying to squeeze a single which might not be there.

  • sateesh on February 25, 2012, 21:25 GMT

    Very well analyzed. Please send a link to Mahela.

  • Raj on February 25, 2012, 21:07 GMT

    An article on this topic that makes so much sense, compared to all the "grey" views I have been reading..

  • k on February 25, 2012, 20:38 GMT

    why can't you just run the batsman out? why should the non-striker get a warning? because of the so-called spirit of the game?

  • John Holder on February 25, 2012, 20:19 GMT

    There is nothing in the laws of cricket which says that the non striker who leaves his ground early should be given a warning by the fielding side. That has simply been a courtesy in the game for as long as I can remember. It is ridiculous that it is deemed ok for a batsman to deliberately steal distance which enables him to make good his ground, yet the bowler who properly and lawfully runs him out while he is cheating is vilified. Additionally, the umpires are there to ensure that there is no unfair practices. It is within the bowler's end umpire's powers to call and signal "Dead Ball" when the batsman leaves his ground early. In so doing he prevents any runs from being scored, thereby ensuring that the batting side does not profit from a deliberate and unfair act.

  • arch on February 25, 2012, 20:06 GMT

    Completely agree. If you are over the line, the bowler has every right to run you out.

  • Mehul on February 25, 2012, 19:51 GMT

    You said it! No warnings are necessary. The laws of cricket are clear enough to allow a bowler to run a batsman out if he is wandering outside the crease. I hope bowlers practice this more often and send offending batsmen on their way. Simple as that.

  • marian on February 25, 2012, 19:06 GMT

    totally agree with this blog ... it is unfair for the batsmen to be too far ahead even before the bowler has bowled a ball .. and people arguing its unfair for the batmen to come out of the crease he can be stumped ..so dat equalizes it! if a batsmen can be stumped why cant he be mankaded ?!

  • Smart Man on February 25, 2012, 19:01 GMT

    I've always been amazed at that blatant leading off. And now it's gentlemanly to give a warning? Please.

  • johnson on February 25, 2012, 18:37 GMT

    i agree and support the complete statement,its unfair for umpires to put the captain confused to make right decision,

  • Jangi Bajwa on February 25, 2012, 18:14 GMT

    Dear Jeh, You raise an important point. We should take it for granted that all the teams will point each other out and make cricket look bad before anything is done! But yes, something needs to be done ie do away with the warning process like you mention - I do not think batsmen backing up too far is cheating though, it is more of gamesmanship. Just like appealing for a catch behind the stumps is gamesmanship when wicket-keepers are trying to avoid a wide ball being called down the leg side. And the consequence of any kind of gamesmanship (or ignorance of the rules) should be a penalty if you get figured out by the opponent or the umpire (being given out in this case).

    I do not agree with your view on measuring how much the batsmen backed up in case of run-outs - it will cause unnecessary delay to an already time consuming game and will make things complicated for players, fans and most importantly might turn off some of the new fans of a game.

  • gulam on February 25, 2012, 17:46 GMT

    Well plotted article... The best solution is what the current rule is , if the bowler gets the bail off and the non striker is not in crease, he is out. Its just that the players and fans have to accept it as a fair meaning to out a batsman

  • Nadeen on February 25, 2012, 16:24 GMT

    ya very true...

  • Suraj Kumar on February 25, 2012, 15:55 GMT

    I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.

    Mankading has similar analogy in Baseball. Where a runner is allowed to steal runs. The runner can get into stride even before the pitcher has thrown the ball towards the hitter/batter.

    However, Pitcher is also free to throw the ball towards first base. And the stealer(runner) can get stranded, equivalent of a Run out at non-striker's end. So it is not a free pass.

    Why is cricket letting this insanity to continue? In my Opinion, if non-striker is not within crease, via his bat or foot, at time of delivery, it should declared a dead ball.

  • veer on February 25, 2012, 15:49 GMT

    well written article

  • Tony on February 25, 2012, 14:59 GMT

    I have an excellent suggestion Mike, that if a free hit / extra ball has to be earned, at the time of releasing the delivery the backing up runner should have not crossed his limit with his foot. Otherwise it is just a no ball, and only runs scored is counted, not an extra not a re-ball. The striker hasn't done anything wrong, so he cant be out in that ball (except run out). The umpire doesn't have to look at both non-striker and bowlers, like usual, they need to check only bowers foot. The decision to bowl another ball or award an extra can be taken after a replay which confirms the non-striker behaved himself. That is certainly not going to take longer than the bowler gets ready for his next ball, for usually it is the fast bowler who bowls a no-ball. That would help to keep the batsman in check. Otherwise it becomes unduly difficult for fast bowlers to keep an eye on erring batsman, and they dont want to loose their rhythm of shoulder movement. If both parties err, thats fun time!

  • Daniel Jourdain on February 25, 2012, 14:56 GMT

    I agree completely.

    In NZ, at least at the 2 clubs I played for as a Junior, backing up was something that was taught. I have no issues with it, as long as its after the bowler has released the ball. If you go before then and you get caught, then you're fair game.

  • Dinith on February 25, 2012, 14:48 GMT

    You can't expect a fast bowler to be mankading anyone. So why not let the umpire warn the batsmen and if he's not following it, rule him out. Every game has its rules, in this case theres a distance which a batsman should run to score. So let's not allow cheap players to make a mockery of the game.

  • Hot Rod Henry on February 25, 2012, 14:45 GMT

    Hot Rod agrees with you... penalised the bums, their not "gentlemen"! just cheats trying to steal an extra yard. Signal one short is a great idea, it will stop it over night. Please note; the square leg umpire will need to officiate (perhaps), (or the video ump) as there is too much already for the umpire at the bowlers end to do.

  • Vidhya on February 25, 2012, 14:42 GMT

    What you said in the last paragraph. The batsman at the batting end can walk down the wicket before the ball is delivered. But he can get stumped if he does that. You don't ask for that extra distance to be accounted from run outs. Same for backing up. Bowlers just have to do it more regularly.

  • Eric Lalloo on February 25, 2012, 13:49 GMT

    When I was playing cricket, as a slow bowler, I Mankaded quite a few batsmen . In today's enviroment, I concur that it should not be necessary to warn a batsman before the bowler running him out.

  • Gizza on February 25, 2012, 13:23 GMT

    I fully agree Michael. The anti-Mankad nonsense is just batting propaganda and yet another thing stacked up against the bowler in this day and age. I remember playing club and school cricket when I was bowling and the batsmen were allowed to get away with it even then (well it was 2 warnings then out). And it was seen as desperate behaviour.

    Imagine if a bowler gets 2 warnings and on the third time gets no-balled? Or something similar for a wide? That would be equality. Also I never thought a batsman is unlucky when the striker hits the ball straight to the stumps, the bowler gets a fingertip and the non-striker is out of the crease. You deserve it! Stop running 0.5 runs every time when the bowler has released the ball! Unlucky is when the umpire or UDRS makes a mistake not this.

  • katuss on February 25, 2012, 13:18 GMT

    If warning the batsman who is backup early is unfair for the fielding team and they shouldn't be warned and should be given out, what about when the bowler bowls more than one ball above the head height in a over. why should there be a warning before giving it a no ball?

  • H.Malik on February 25, 2012, 13:13 GMT

    Wow I like your immaginative thinking (measure the bowling side distance the guy got advantage and subtract it from him making grounds ) you must be chairman of the tecnical commitee of expets who are redesigning the rules . Its fair and square what you said (in my mind atleast) its a blatant cheating and must not be allowed . warning before running him out ( Big BS ) . There is no fair playing ground then applying the rule as it exits (after changed last year ).FULL STOP . Bravo insist upon your valued write-up , to be included into redefining the law on run out of a non striker at any side ( score of 1 was behind your thinking i would say apply it on either side till the ball is declared dead so 2 or 3 or even 4 running scored runs )

  • Ska on February 25, 2012, 12:56 GMT

    Absolutely agree on the backing up issue. Especially when compared to baseball. On a slightly separate note, your following statement may not entirely be right - "No other aspect of the game requires a warning before a penalty is incurred." Bowler running on the pitch - to use your words - by accident/design requires a warning, doesn't it? Feel free to correct me.

  • cricketfan on February 25, 2012, 12:56 GMT

    I do not understand how making it a short run would solve the issue. Consider the scenario when there is a new number 7 batsman facing and a set batsman on the other side with 4 runs required of 3 balls. The non-striker would not hesitate to take a "short" run and get on the other side even on the expense of his partner getting out. For all you know, he can start at the mid pitch (or even on the other side) if there is no rule to give him out.

    Cricketing rules must follow common sense and logic states that the rule to run out a batsman talking a start before the delivery being bowled is correct to the core.

  • Jay on February 25, 2012, 12:54 GMT

    Spot on mate...

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Jay on February 25, 2012, 12:54 GMT

    Spot on mate...

  • cricketfan on February 25, 2012, 12:56 GMT

    I do not understand how making it a short run would solve the issue. Consider the scenario when there is a new number 7 batsman facing and a set batsman on the other side with 4 runs required of 3 balls. The non-striker would not hesitate to take a "short" run and get on the other side even on the expense of his partner getting out. For all you know, he can start at the mid pitch (or even on the other side) if there is no rule to give him out.

    Cricketing rules must follow common sense and logic states that the rule to run out a batsman talking a start before the delivery being bowled is correct to the core.

  • Ska on February 25, 2012, 12:56 GMT

    Absolutely agree on the backing up issue. Especially when compared to baseball. On a slightly separate note, your following statement may not entirely be right - "No other aspect of the game requires a warning before a penalty is incurred." Bowler running on the pitch - to use your words - by accident/design requires a warning, doesn't it? Feel free to correct me.

  • H.Malik on February 25, 2012, 13:13 GMT

    Wow I like your immaginative thinking (measure the bowling side distance the guy got advantage and subtract it from him making grounds ) you must be chairman of the tecnical commitee of expets who are redesigning the rules . Its fair and square what you said (in my mind atleast) its a blatant cheating and must not be allowed . warning before running him out ( Big BS ) . There is no fair playing ground then applying the rule as it exits (after changed last year ).FULL STOP . Bravo insist upon your valued write-up , to be included into redefining the law on run out of a non striker at any side ( score of 1 was behind your thinking i would say apply it on either side till the ball is declared dead so 2 or 3 or even 4 running scored runs )

  • katuss on February 25, 2012, 13:18 GMT

    If warning the batsman who is backup early is unfair for the fielding team and they shouldn't be warned and should be given out, what about when the bowler bowls more than one ball above the head height in a over. why should there be a warning before giving it a no ball?

  • Gizza on February 25, 2012, 13:23 GMT

    I fully agree Michael. The anti-Mankad nonsense is just batting propaganda and yet another thing stacked up against the bowler in this day and age. I remember playing club and school cricket when I was bowling and the batsmen were allowed to get away with it even then (well it was 2 warnings then out). And it was seen as desperate behaviour.

    Imagine if a bowler gets 2 warnings and on the third time gets no-balled? Or something similar for a wide? That would be equality. Also I never thought a batsman is unlucky when the striker hits the ball straight to the stumps, the bowler gets a fingertip and the non-striker is out of the crease. You deserve it! Stop running 0.5 runs every time when the bowler has released the ball! Unlucky is when the umpire or UDRS makes a mistake not this.

  • Eric Lalloo on February 25, 2012, 13:49 GMT

    When I was playing cricket, as a slow bowler, I Mankaded quite a few batsmen . In today's enviroment, I concur that it should not be necessary to warn a batsman before the bowler running him out.

  • Vidhya on February 25, 2012, 14:42 GMT

    What you said in the last paragraph. The batsman at the batting end can walk down the wicket before the ball is delivered. But he can get stumped if he does that. You don't ask for that extra distance to be accounted from run outs. Same for backing up. Bowlers just have to do it more regularly.

  • Hot Rod Henry on February 25, 2012, 14:45 GMT

    Hot Rod agrees with you... penalised the bums, their not "gentlemen"! just cheats trying to steal an extra yard. Signal one short is a great idea, it will stop it over night. Please note; the square leg umpire will need to officiate (perhaps), (or the video ump) as there is too much already for the umpire at the bowlers end to do.

  • Dinith on February 25, 2012, 14:48 GMT

    You can't expect a fast bowler to be mankading anyone. So why not let the umpire warn the batsmen and if he's not following it, rule him out. Every game has its rules, in this case theres a distance which a batsman should run to score. So let's not allow cheap players to make a mockery of the game.