English cricket August 31, 2012

Criticising Mankading is double standards

Paul Leary
A batsman who ignores a warning and continues to leave his crease before the ball is bowled is surely contravening the spirit of the game, rather than the bowler, even if it's unintentional
45

Yesterday in Taunton, during the game between Somerset and Surrey in the county championship, Surrey spinner Murali Kartik, having warned the Somerset batsman Alex Barrow two balls previously for excessive backing up before the ball had been delivered, promptly ran the aforementioned non-striker out. Cue in pandemonium at his dismissal, umpire requests for a withdrawal of the appeal, and verbal abuse from the crowd.

Former Somerset keeper Steve Snell, watching in the crowd, told the local radio station that he'd "never seen anything like it in my nine years in the professional game. It's really bad sportsmanship and I'm shocked by it, if I'm honest." Snell's incredulity caused him to wonder "how he [Kartik] isn't embarrassed when he looks back at what he's done".

I recall a similar sentiment created by an opposition batsman in a recent club game, who having edged behind on about 10, went on to score 70 not out and win the game. Sadly however, despite ours' being a sport which ostensibly values fair play and sportsmanship, being a 'non-walker' is happily tolerated in the cricketing world and simply seen as a subjective preference. This is regrettable, as bearing in mind that a batsman doesn't tend to hang around when they've middled a ball down square leg's throat, declining to walk off when the margins are less obvious equates to deceiving not just the umpire, but also the paying spectator, and indeed sport itself. In short, it's a form of cheating.

Thankfully, the Decision Review System increasingly restricts this, however those who bat on despite knowing themselves to have been out certainly don't induce anywhere near the same barrage of criticism suffered by those involved in yesterday's incident. The criticism directed at Kartik and his captain, Gareth Batty, is not only a case of double standards and hypocrisy, but is simply unfounded. Surrey's captain and coach have been forced into a humble apology, for as far as can be judged, playing not only within the laws of cricket, but also the spirit.

Had a warning not been given, critics would have been justified in their complaints, however, a batsman who ignores a warning and continues to leave his crease before the ball is bowled is surely contravening the spirit of the game, rather than the bowler, even if it's unintentional. It might be said that Barrow's was simply a careless, innocent mistake. So is letting your back foot drag outside the batting crease, and this is swiftly punished by a gleeful wicketkeeper.

Besides, if Mankading isn't to be allowed, even when a warning has been given, then the batsman may as well stand half-way down the pitch and save himself the stress of a tight single. So when Somerset captain Marcus Trescothick commented that "it's not something you want to see in cricket", my thoughts were that, true, perhaps a beautifully turning off break cannoning into the off stump may have been easier on the eye of the spectator, but from a sportsmanship standpoint, I don't see an issue.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Vijay on October 5, 2012, 10:39 GMT

    I don't think Mankanding is kind of unsportive action. It only means that non-striker tries to cheat and gets caught during the action or he missed his concentration. Isn't cricket a game of concentration, He should be punished for that. If mankanding is not allowed I guess it is better to allow the non-striker to stand directly on the batsman's end instead. Why bother standing on the other side. Bell's incident is ugly,he was completly ignorant of the status of the game. What Dhoni did was more than Sportsmanship. The worst is what Shewag was made to do when Ashwin Mankand in Australia. unfortunately, it is Indian's whoes name keeps popping up when ever Mankanding tops the headlines. If Mankanding is not allowed so should be the "NO BALLS". No ball is there to protect the extra advantage the bowler gets, so does Mankanding. To Trescothick "Yes, it is ugly to see a batsman trying to cheat and get got and get away on the back door i nthe name of sportsmanship".

  • NS on September 5, 2012, 8:14 GMT

    Why the talk only about Kartik 'running out' Barrow, and no talk about the former warning the latter about backing up too far from the non-striker's end?

  • Aditya on September 3, 2012, 0:40 GMT

    @Cricket24/7: First off, the writer isn't even Indian. Secondly, this isn't a Cricinfo article; it's sent by a reader. Honestly, get a life.

  • Martin Briggs on September 2, 2012, 22:55 GMT

    Incredible that so many press column inches and efforts in posting website comments centre on the Spirit of the Game when the incident should have been nipped in the bud by umpire Peter Hartley by calling Dead Ball. For such a dismissal to be actioned the bowler must remove the bail(s) BEFORE ENTERING HIS DELIVERY STRIDE according to the Laws and Peter Hartley, as a county umpire, should know this law backwards. Looking at the incident on the ECB website it was obvious that both Kartik's feet had landed, he was commencing his bowling action and had to physically turn round to remove (rather dramatically) the bails. Maybe county umpires are so immersed in Rules and Regulations and technicalities to forget the Laws (even allowing for the fact that we all make mistakes - this is a basic one)? So..... Dead Ball, no need for discussion, apologies, public roasting of Kartik and Batty, boos of spectators, naval gazing, analysis.....fact, full stop....move on (as 'Sir Ian' would say)...

  • Tom Foley on September 2, 2012, 18:24 GMT

    Excellent article. I do not see any reason to allow the non-striker a free start! What is the logic? A run is completed when the batsmen cross the 22 yards. A start makes it shorter and is unfair to the fielding side. Only reason a start is allowed is because it is a tradition. Cricket must be played within the rules. Tradition comes second. There is no reason to give the non-striker a warning...just get them out and get rid of the tradition of a free start for non-strikers. Unsportsman-like? Hogwash!

  • Shamik Ghosh on September 2, 2012, 18:06 GMT

    Spot on Paul, good article. It's the hypocrisy that's always stuck out like a sore thumb, and you've cited the very same examples we all think of. Cricket24/7's comment is pathetic, playing the race card, quite sad and pathetic.

    You just can't understand how the self appointed defenders of this fair and lovely game have no problem with batsman not walking after definite edges, bowlers verbally abusing the opponents, yet the run out of a batsman who was stealing ground unfairly, AND WARNED PRIOR, is causing so much drama.

    To cricket 24/7 - to continue the race card playing, would you have bothered commenting if the same article was written for a white person mankading? Food for thought mate.

  • Giridhar on September 2, 2012, 18:01 GMT

    great to see greater support for "mankading" now. how come a bowler drags his foot 1 inch wide and its a no ball.. if this z not against so called ghostly"spirits" of game den how come a batsman strolling even after warning is against it? get a life englishmen.. if d batsman hasnt got any brain then betr play him gilli -danda

  • Graham on September 2, 2012, 16:49 GMT

    It is ridiculous that a bowler running the non-striker out is against the spirit of the game, but the non-striker leaving his ground before the ball is delivered is not.

    What is to stop the non-striker from standing halfway up the pitch or even right next to the striker before the ball is delivered? Does the spirit of the game change depending on whether you are 3 feet or 11 yards or 22 yards outside your ground?

  • Icki Iqbal on September 2, 2012, 15:22 GMT

    I am not an Indian but I see nothing wrong in what Murli did given that he'd warned the player. Its the nonstriker who's cheating by backing up too far. I'll tell you what cheating is: 1. Colin Cowdrey building up a reputation as a 'walker' but not doing so when it really mattered 2. Tiger Lance saying Yes when Ian Chappel the batsman asked (in 1966/7) whether he'd caught it when there was some doubt that he had. He later admitted that he hadn't and said Ian didn't ask did it hit the ground first.

    3. Javed Maindad appeling for a ctach (Birmingham 1982) which he'd caught on the half volley

  • Freddie on September 2, 2012, 11:50 GMT

    Whatever's within the rules is fair game.

    I would also like to make a case for taking runs if the ball has hit the runnner off the incoming throw. If the ball hits the stumps and goes away, overthrows are acceptable, so why not if the fielder hits the runner by mistake, assuming of course that the runner hasn't deliberately deflected the ball.

    I wonder from where these ideas of deeming things that are legal as per cricket laws ever came to become unsportsmanlike.

  • Vijay on October 5, 2012, 10:39 GMT

    I don't think Mankanding is kind of unsportive action. It only means that non-striker tries to cheat and gets caught during the action or he missed his concentration. Isn't cricket a game of concentration, He should be punished for that. If mankanding is not allowed I guess it is better to allow the non-striker to stand directly on the batsman's end instead. Why bother standing on the other side. Bell's incident is ugly,he was completly ignorant of the status of the game. What Dhoni did was more than Sportsmanship. The worst is what Shewag was made to do when Ashwin Mankand in Australia. unfortunately, it is Indian's whoes name keeps popping up when ever Mankanding tops the headlines. If Mankanding is not allowed so should be the "NO BALLS". No ball is there to protect the extra advantage the bowler gets, so does Mankanding. To Trescothick "Yes, it is ugly to see a batsman trying to cheat and get got and get away on the back door i nthe name of sportsmanship".

  • NS on September 5, 2012, 8:14 GMT

    Why the talk only about Kartik 'running out' Barrow, and no talk about the former warning the latter about backing up too far from the non-striker's end?

  • Aditya on September 3, 2012, 0:40 GMT

    @Cricket24/7: First off, the writer isn't even Indian. Secondly, this isn't a Cricinfo article; it's sent by a reader. Honestly, get a life.

  • Martin Briggs on September 2, 2012, 22:55 GMT

    Incredible that so many press column inches and efforts in posting website comments centre on the Spirit of the Game when the incident should have been nipped in the bud by umpire Peter Hartley by calling Dead Ball. For such a dismissal to be actioned the bowler must remove the bail(s) BEFORE ENTERING HIS DELIVERY STRIDE according to the Laws and Peter Hartley, as a county umpire, should know this law backwards. Looking at the incident on the ECB website it was obvious that both Kartik's feet had landed, he was commencing his bowling action and had to physically turn round to remove (rather dramatically) the bails. Maybe county umpires are so immersed in Rules and Regulations and technicalities to forget the Laws (even allowing for the fact that we all make mistakes - this is a basic one)? So..... Dead Ball, no need for discussion, apologies, public roasting of Kartik and Batty, boos of spectators, naval gazing, analysis.....fact, full stop....move on (as 'Sir Ian' would say)...

  • Tom Foley on September 2, 2012, 18:24 GMT

    Excellent article. I do not see any reason to allow the non-striker a free start! What is the logic? A run is completed when the batsmen cross the 22 yards. A start makes it shorter and is unfair to the fielding side. Only reason a start is allowed is because it is a tradition. Cricket must be played within the rules. Tradition comes second. There is no reason to give the non-striker a warning...just get them out and get rid of the tradition of a free start for non-strikers. Unsportsman-like? Hogwash!

  • Shamik Ghosh on September 2, 2012, 18:06 GMT

    Spot on Paul, good article. It's the hypocrisy that's always stuck out like a sore thumb, and you've cited the very same examples we all think of. Cricket24/7's comment is pathetic, playing the race card, quite sad and pathetic.

    You just can't understand how the self appointed defenders of this fair and lovely game have no problem with batsman not walking after definite edges, bowlers verbally abusing the opponents, yet the run out of a batsman who was stealing ground unfairly, AND WARNED PRIOR, is causing so much drama.

    To cricket 24/7 - to continue the race card playing, would you have bothered commenting if the same article was written for a white person mankading? Food for thought mate.

  • Giridhar on September 2, 2012, 18:01 GMT

    great to see greater support for "mankading" now. how come a bowler drags his foot 1 inch wide and its a no ball.. if this z not against so called ghostly"spirits" of game den how come a batsman strolling even after warning is against it? get a life englishmen.. if d batsman hasnt got any brain then betr play him gilli -danda

  • Graham on September 2, 2012, 16:49 GMT

    It is ridiculous that a bowler running the non-striker out is against the spirit of the game, but the non-striker leaving his ground before the ball is delivered is not.

    What is to stop the non-striker from standing halfway up the pitch or even right next to the striker before the ball is delivered? Does the spirit of the game change depending on whether you are 3 feet or 11 yards or 22 yards outside your ground?

  • Icki Iqbal on September 2, 2012, 15:22 GMT

    I am not an Indian but I see nothing wrong in what Murli did given that he'd warned the player. Its the nonstriker who's cheating by backing up too far. I'll tell you what cheating is: 1. Colin Cowdrey building up a reputation as a 'walker' but not doing so when it really mattered 2. Tiger Lance saying Yes when Ian Chappel the batsman asked (in 1966/7) whether he'd caught it when there was some doubt that he had. He later admitted that he hadn't and said Ian didn't ask did it hit the ground first.

    3. Javed Maindad appeling for a ctach (Birmingham 1982) which he'd caught on the half volley

  • Freddie on September 2, 2012, 11:50 GMT

    Whatever's within the rules is fair game.

    I would also like to make a case for taking runs if the ball has hit the runnner off the incoming throw. If the ball hits the stumps and goes away, overthrows are acceptable, so why not if the fielder hits the runner by mistake, assuming of course that the runner hasn't deliberately deflected the ball.

    I wonder from where these ideas of deeming things that are legal as per cricket laws ever came to become unsportsmanlike.

  • Paolo on September 2, 2012, 11:11 GMT

    If it's in the laws of the game then it should be allowed. If people don't want Mankading (eg Tresco etc) then they should try to get the rules changed. Otherwise what is the problem?

  • James on September 2, 2012, 6:26 GMT

    Totally agree if the batsman has been warned and does it again then they are deliberately cheating and should be run out. I'm totally baffled why running out batsmen who are abusing the spirit of the game with excessive backing up is considered bad sportsmanship.

  • Ashok Sridharan on September 2, 2012, 6:02 GMT

    @Cricket 24/7: As I see it, stepping out of the crease while the ball is being delivered gives the non-striker an unfair advantage. The law doesn't allow a fielder to change his position while the ball is being delivered- why should batsmen enjoy any leeway then?

  • Suresh Haridas on September 2, 2012, 4:09 GMT

    Recently a similar incident happened in the Under 19 World Cup between Australia and Bangladesh. To put an end to this hypocrisy, it is time the laws are written clearly that it is legal to run a batsman out thus.And please ....do not use the word "Mankading". Vinoo Mankad was a true sportsman and using his name to indicate unsportsmanlike behaviour is not in the spirit of the game either....the laws can make it OUT " Out of Crease"

  • Gizza on September 2, 2012, 2:13 GMT

    The anti-Mankadism that is part of some people in the cricket community just reflects their pro-batting bias against the bowlers and fielders. The Mankad dismissal has always been logical for someone interested in the laws of cricket. Or if you are against batsmen getting out in this way, then stop saying a bloke who gets out by the bowler touching their fingers on the ball coming back from a straight drive which then hits the non-striker's stumps is unlucky. It is not "unlucky." They DESERVED it. Alternatively ban Mankading but if a batsman only runs about 11 yards, give them 0.5 runs. Unless it is a boundary, 22 yards = 1 run.

  • Dr SAMITH CHOUTA on September 1, 2012, 23:28 GMT

    I agree that double standards are being played in the game of cricket. Things agreed to or disagreed to as and when pleased. Why bother having a runner at all if he is going to make a run for it before the bowler bowls the ball. Another thing is very conveniently the manner of getting a runner out the aforementioned way in the article has been called mankading(after an Indian).

    Someone should post comments in support of Karthik in the English press. We are with you Karthik.

  • Ryan Banwarie on September 1, 2012, 15:25 GMT

    I surely approve of the action taken by Murali Kartik in warning and then proceeding to run out the non-striker. I find his action legal,justifiable and fair within the Spirit of the Game. The run out dismissal is stated within the Laws of Cricket 2000 Edition,it has been approved by MCC , so being how can it be an act of unfair and unsportsman like play? Even if Kartik didn't warn the non-striker and then run him out ,its approved by the Laws!

  • japdb on September 1, 2012, 14:14 GMT

    Divya: just wanted to point out tht\t its called Mankading because Mankad ran out Bill Brown after warning him. Indians have been tough enough to do it for a long time.

  • Narayan on September 1, 2012, 13:49 GMT

    I agree 100%. Batsmen have been pampered for too long, and the bowler needs all the support he can get. I remember reading an article where it was mentioned that even the great Don had no problems with Mankading. My only problem with this is the name tagged on - Mankad should be remembered for other things than controversies.

  • Divya on September 1, 2012, 13:27 GMT

    If Mankading is not allowed, then the non-striker should NOT be allowed to back up. Period. Why is there place for so much compassion in cricket? Sportspersons play to win, plain and simple. I remember a tennis match in which Maria Sharapova was playing Patty Schnyder, and the match was evenly balanced (slightly in favour of Schnyder). Sharapova decided to change her racquet at a decisive moment, the resulting break in play broke Schnyder's rhythm, and Sharapova ended up winning the game. And Sharapova had no regrets for what she did. If female tennis players can be so ruthless, why can male cricketers display even a fraction of that ruthlessness? And I also think that most of the criticism that Kartik is facing is because he is Indian. Westerners expect Indians to be soft, meek, and submissive. No one must've expected an Indian to indulge in such win-at-all-costs tactics. This is exactly why people like Sourav Ganguly were also not liked by the Brits.

  • Sanmania on September 1, 2012, 13:21 GMT

    I, really agree with you Mr. Paul. Even, I don't see any issue.

  • PLI on September 1, 2012, 12:02 GMT

    very well written. I agree with you. Great article.

  • michael holding on September 1, 2012, 11:55 GMT

    Truer words have never been written.Those who disagree need to put forward some compelling arguments against the above written words.I await with great anticipation.

  • Anonymous on September 1, 2012, 10:12 GMT

    Well said. It's an unbelievable double standard. Kartik reportedly defended his actions on twitter. I say good on him.

  • Arvind on September 1, 2012, 10:02 GMT

    There's should even be any need to give a warning. Mankading has been done often enough, and batsmen should be well aware of it.

  • sachin on September 1, 2012, 9:55 GMT

    I concur. Its not just a game, but a profession played by professionals.

  • jay on September 1, 2012, 8:02 GMT

    Totally agree with the writer!

    "Had a warning not been given, critics would have been justified in their complaints, however, a batsman who ignores a warning and continues to leave his crease before the ball is bowled is surely contravening the spirit of the game, rather than the bowler, even if it’s unintentional."

  • Jagan on September 1, 2012, 6:56 GMT

    Well said. One couldn't be more clear and emphatic. Those who are criticising the mankading, need to ask - how many times have they walked when the umpire has not adjudged them out.

    One thing I cannot comprehend is - why should the umpires consult the fielding captain on a dismissal? Surely, its not in the law book. They do not consult on LBW or caught behind. Why on a run out?

    Surely, there is something missing here.

  • Nirmal Shah on September 1, 2012, 5:58 GMT

    Karthik has done nothing wrong. It is totaly justified given the fact that batesman was wanrned about two delevery ago.

  • Kumar on September 1, 2012, 3:16 GMT

    Karthik did what any smart cricketer would do - follow the protocol, warn the batsman once and run him out for a repeated offence. How come nobody questions the intelligence or ethics of Alex Barrow? If he had an ounce of cricketing brain, he would not have thrown his wicket in that dumb manner. Alex Barrow is just not a very smart cricketer. Marcus Trescothik commenting on something like that - arnt there more pressing issues in cricket?

  • Ruchit Shah on August 31, 2012, 23:26 GMT

    Unfortunately Paul, in today's modern world of sport, nicking behind to the keeper and standing, or catching the ball on the full, or intentionally throwing the ball to the ground to scruff it up, is seen as "fair", but legitimately running a batsmen out, is not. It infuriates me as a cricket fan to see such blasphemy written about the "spirit of the game" and what not. Where's the spirit of the game when Matt Prior yelps beyond his vocal chords can handle, in order to appeal for leg before wicket, for a ball that not only clipped the batsman's bat, but also perhaps hit him outside the line, only to not use the DRS after? Where is the spirit of the game when Ian bell goes on a stroll at the stroke of lunch, without grounding his bat, but still wanting to claim a run? Where is the spirit of the game when Kevin Pietersen lets a number 7 batter get an intention boundary only to keep his partner, a number 11 tail-ender, on-strike for the next over? Where is the spirit of the game then?

  • Andrew on August 31, 2012, 22:40 GMT

    No issues with it at all. I agree totally with the article.

  • Pav on August 31, 2012, 22:35 GMT

    Well done for being one of the few writers to stand by the 'mankading'. Cricket seems to sometimes become a game that has so many contradictions that you are left flabbergasted. One person wants to play by the rules but he could be playing against the spirit of the game and therefore is wrong- i.e. he is wrong because he is right!

  • Pav on August 31, 2012, 22:35 GMT

    Well done for being one of the few writers to stand by the 'mankading'. Cricket seems to sometimes become a game that has so many contradictions that you are left flabbergasted. One person wants to play by the rules but he could be playing against the spirit of the game and therefore is wrong- i.e. he is wrong because he is right!

  • Keith Lawson on August 31, 2012, 22:12 GMT

    If we assume that the transgressing "batsman" deliberatly walks clearly onto the wicket, ESPECIALLY having been warned of his transgression by the bowler, then, if we credit the non-striking batsman with having a crumb of intelligence , he can surely be "outed" by the bowler. All that's needed to avoid being given out by the bowler is the rudiments of the game and a brain.If the situation was explained to the fielder by Kartik then I have no sympathy for Barrow.

  • Ravi on August 31, 2012, 20:23 GMT

    Mankading is within the law and even Don Bradman seems to have supported Vinoo Mankad's action

  • Anonymous on August 31, 2012, 20:08 GMT

    Very well said Tresco....Bt i dnt play 4 spectators ....

  • Jim Hulbert on August 31, 2012, 19:54 GMT

    Spot on. load of of corinthian nonsense, he gave a warning then ran him out. I'd have done exactly the same.

  • Vinay on August 31, 2012, 19:52 GMT

    I've been asking people the same question when they say it is not good sportsmanship to run out a batsmen who is out of his crease. Especially, if you been asked not to. Batsmen can happily wait for umpire's finger to go back without any remorse when he knows he edged it(and carry on if he is adjudged not out) but bowler cannot take a wicket even without breaking any rules. We are not in early 1900 when it was truely a gentlemen's game. People make carrers out of the game and feed their families. They go to the gym and train hard everyday to be game fit, win championships, get more sponsors and eventually make more money.

    As long as players not breaking rules and selling themselves for boat load of cash; playing hard for evey run and wicket is a fair game. The drunkards and critics who never know the feeling of loosing or winning in a playground will continue living an ignorant life.

  • Anonymous on August 31, 2012, 19:21 GMT

    Well said. I never understood this "spirt of the game" double standard hypocricy.

  • Kartik Grover on August 31, 2012, 17:47 GMT

    100% agreed

  • Jay on August 31, 2012, 16:30 GMT

    Spot on mate, those who talk about spirit of the game are talking through their hat...

  • A.B. on August 31, 2012, 16:22 GMT

    Well said!

  • AB on August 31, 2012, 15:48 GMT

    Spirit maybe, laws no. You can't just pretend to bowl and then not let go of the ball in the hope the batsman will innocently lift his bat up when he turns round to see why you haven't let go of it... which is exactly what happened here. Kartik's front foot was down, with his bowling arm raised above his head, and Barrow's bat was still in the crease.

  • Cricket24/7 on August 31, 2012, 15:41 GMT

    LOL definitely know this website is owned by Indians as everyone who has seen the incident has said that it is a disgrace, even the captain has apologised and says that he regrets his decision. I wonder if the bowler wasn't indian would you lot still have written this article, i very much doubt so!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Cricket24/7 on August 31, 2012, 15:41 GMT

    LOL definitely know this website is owned by Indians as everyone who has seen the incident has said that it is a disgrace, even the captain has apologised and says that he regrets his decision. I wonder if the bowler wasn't indian would you lot still have written this article, i very much doubt so!

  • AB on August 31, 2012, 15:48 GMT

    Spirit maybe, laws no. You can't just pretend to bowl and then not let go of the ball in the hope the batsman will innocently lift his bat up when he turns round to see why you haven't let go of it... which is exactly what happened here. Kartik's front foot was down, with his bowling arm raised above his head, and Barrow's bat was still in the crease.

  • A.B. on August 31, 2012, 16:22 GMT

    Well said!

  • Jay on August 31, 2012, 16:30 GMT

    Spot on mate, those who talk about spirit of the game are talking through their hat...

  • Kartik Grover on August 31, 2012, 17:47 GMT

    100% agreed

  • Anonymous on August 31, 2012, 19:21 GMT

    Well said. I never understood this "spirt of the game" double standard hypocricy.

  • Vinay on August 31, 2012, 19:52 GMT

    I've been asking people the same question when they say it is not good sportsmanship to run out a batsmen who is out of his crease. Especially, if you been asked not to. Batsmen can happily wait for umpire's finger to go back without any remorse when he knows he edged it(and carry on if he is adjudged not out) but bowler cannot take a wicket even without breaking any rules. We are not in early 1900 when it was truely a gentlemen's game. People make carrers out of the game and feed their families. They go to the gym and train hard everyday to be game fit, win championships, get more sponsors and eventually make more money.

    As long as players not breaking rules and selling themselves for boat load of cash; playing hard for evey run and wicket is a fair game. The drunkards and critics who never know the feeling of loosing or winning in a playground will continue living an ignorant life.

  • Jim Hulbert on August 31, 2012, 19:54 GMT

    Spot on. load of of corinthian nonsense, he gave a warning then ran him out. I'd have done exactly the same.

  • Anonymous on August 31, 2012, 20:08 GMT

    Very well said Tresco....Bt i dnt play 4 spectators ....

  • Ravi on August 31, 2012, 20:23 GMT

    Mankading is within the law and even Don Bradman seems to have supported Vinoo Mankad's action