June 15, 2014

It's idiotic to not mankad a straying non-striker

You don't warn a batsman before stumping him, so why warn him before he steals a run?
84

Sri Lanka's captain, Angelo Mathews, was not repentant in the lead-up to the Test at Lord's when discussing the mankad of Jos Buttler in an ODI.

And nor should he be.

How come when the administrators blunder in changing the law, and the batsmen take advantage by cheating, it's the fielding side that is vilified?

Under the old law it was straightforward. If the non-striker backed up correctly (feet outside, bat inside the crease) and didn't leave his ground until the bowler released the ball, he couldn't be mankaded. Anybody who was mankaded under that law deserved his punishment for 1) being stupid, and 2) not putting a high enough value on his wicket.

Then the administrators - in a case of meddling purely for the sake of it - changed the law and in doing so, encouraged batsmen to leave their crease before the ball was released. This change legalised cheating - stupidity at its zenith.

The law has since been changed again but batsmen are now in the habit of gaining an advantage and we can only hope a few more are mankaded so the ploy is discouraged.

Cricket missed a great opportunity to eradicate reckless backing up forever when they failed to clone the fiery Australian legspinner Bill "Tiger" O'Reilly. A young journalist once went to Tiger in the press box. "Excuse me Mr O'Reilly," he asked timidly, "but did you ever mankad a batsman?" O'Reilly looked the whippersnapper up and down, then growled, "Son, I never found a batsman that keen to get to the other end."

If you play by the laws you'll be contesting the game in the right spirit. And how is cheating at the non-striker's end upholding the spirit?

The advantage to the batting side is huge when the non-striker is allowed to get a start. Backing up makes it easier for a batsman and a tailender to collect twos, so the accomplished player retains the strike more often; and the ultimate reward can be victory when extra runs are "thieved" in a tight finish.

I'm surprised more non-strikers haven't been mankaded and that fielding sides bother with the so-called "courtesy" of warning the batsman first.

Do you warn a batsman before you stump him? No. Then why warn him before you mankad him? The situation is exactly the same: the batsman leaves his ground of his choosing and he's aware of the risk involved.

And if anyone, in arguing for the defence, invokes the spirit of cricket, I'm likely to lose my lentils all over the lunch table.

What is more important, the laws of the game or the spirit of cricket? If you play by the laws you'll be contesting the game in the right spirit. And by the way, how is cheating at the non-striker's end upholding the spirit?

For some absurd reason it's the fielding side that is vilified when a batsman acts stupidly. In 2011 at Trent Bridge, when Ian Bell was guilty of gross negligence in walking off the field at tea time - thinking the ball was dead - and MS Dhoni ran him out, it was the Indian captain who was expected to grovel.

Dhoni should have told captain Andrew Strauss and coach Andy Flower, when they came to ask for Bell's reinstatement: "B***** off back to your dressing room and tell Ian to take greater care of his wicket next time. And while he's got some time on his hands, he should read the laws of cricket."

The fielding side wasn't always vilified in these cases. When the West Indies fast bowler Charlie Griffith mankaded Ian Redpath at Adelaide Oval in 1968-69, no Australian player pleaded the batsman's case. And we certainly wouldn't have blamed Wes Hall if he had repeated the dose to the same batsman in the next Test, when Redda was again "discovered" well out of his ground. Redda was lucky Wes had a sense of humour. After glaring at him, Hall chuckled: "You must be some kind of idiot, man."

It's hard not to agree with those sentiments. And any fielding side that doesn't mankad a cheating batsman should be looked upon in the same light. At the very least it would highlight the stupidity of changing a perfectly acceptable law.

Former Australia captain Ian Chappell is now a cricket commentator for Channel 9, and a columnist

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • ladycricfan on June 20, 2014, 10:10 GMT

    @RP225, the point is the non striker is gaining unfair advantage by backing up. Once the bowler starts his run up so many things become alive. Fielders can't change positions, bowlers can't switch between over and round the wicket bowling and so on....but he can stop delivering the ball any time and it will be a dead ball.

  • KingOwl on June 17, 2014, 10:39 GMT

    Only in cricket that we argue about obvious things like the 'moral right' to enforce the laws of the game. But then, that is one reason why cricket is unique.

  • RaghuramanR on June 17, 2014, 5:34 GMT

    Agree with the article - tooth and nail :D

  • Sol09 on June 17, 2014, 2:58 GMT

    My concern here is with the term Mankad. Vinoo Mankad was a fine cricketer who is on both the batting and bowling honours list at Lords. The only other players on the same list are Keith Miller and Gary Sobers. Why besmirch the name of such a sportsman because of a single event: Bill Brown (in the 1947 test match against Australia) was warned by Mankad before before run out. In the words of the Don himself : "For the life of me, I can't understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the nonstriker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the nonstriker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage". Many other cricketers (eg Jardin) have damaged the spirit of cricket far worse than Mankad but none of them have suffered the same igominy as Mankad (and his family).

  • on June 16, 2014, 16:37 GMT

    If the batsman is out of his crease then 'mash up' the stumps; real simple.

  • on June 16, 2014, 15:58 GMT

    @RP225 to answer your question, If stumping off an wide ball is legal, mankadingnis also legal

  • RP225 on June 16, 2014, 14:21 GMT

    I perfectly agree with Ian. I have observed as no nonsense person. But only itch I guess is the legal aspect. How can a person be declared out when the ball is not released? I thought for any thing to be counted, the bowler has to release the ball, right? Suppose the Bowlers mankads the non-striker, then is the ball legally counted?

  • henchart on June 16, 2014, 13:43 GMT

    @DrJez;batsmen can and should see but not assume anything while batting.Price of being run out for assuming is too less a price nay no price at all.

  • on June 16, 2014, 13:30 GMT

    Chappelli is correct to blame the game's administrators for changing the rule.

    You can almost guarantee that when they start meddling, bad things will come of it.

    The relaxation of the 'throwing' criteria looms as another classic case.

  • on June 16, 2014, 13:01 GMT

    Ian is bang on the money here. If you don't want to get run out, stay in your crease. Just try applying the logic in other contexts: suppose a batsman thinks he has reached the other end, so lifts his bat up and slows down, then gets run out. Absolutely no-one would object to him being run out. Either you've made your ground or you haven't. Similarly, either the non-striker stays in his crease until the bowler hits his delivery stride or he doesn't. If he doesn't, it's his own fault.

    The salient points are: (i) no-one is forced to leave their crease; and (ii) any batsman backing up too far is gaining an unfair advantage, by being better placed to run a short single.

    JW (author of http://www.amazon.co.uk/Court-Bowled-Tales-Cricket-Law/dp/085490140X/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&qid=1385646505&sr=8-26&keywords=cricket+law)

  • ladycricfan on June 20, 2014, 10:10 GMT

    @RP225, the point is the non striker is gaining unfair advantage by backing up. Once the bowler starts his run up so many things become alive. Fielders can't change positions, bowlers can't switch between over and round the wicket bowling and so on....but he can stop delivering the ball any time and it will be a dead ball.

  • KingOwl on June 17, 2014, 10:39 GMT

    Only in cricket that we argue about obvious things like the 'moral right' to enforce the laws of the game. But then, that is one reason why cricket is unique.

  • RaghuramanR on June 17, 2014, 5:34 GMT

    Agree with the article - tooth and nail :D

  • Sol09 on June 17, 2014, 2:58 GMT

    My concern here is with the term Mankad. Vinoo Mankad was a fine cricketer who is on both the batting and bowling honours list at Lords. The only other players on the same list are Keith Miller and Gary Sobers. Why besmirch the name of such a sportsman because of a single event: Bill Brown (in the 1947 test match against Australia) was warned by Mankad before before run out. In the words of the Don himself : "For the life of me, I can't understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the nonstriker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the nonstriker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage". Many other cricketers (eg Jardin) have damaged the spirit of cricket far worse than Mankad but none of them have suffered the same igominy as Mankad (and his family).

  • on June 16, 2014, 16:37 GMT

    If the batsman is out of his crease then 'mash up' the stumps; real simple.

  • on June 16, 2014, 15:58 GMT

    @RP225 to answer your question, If stumping off an wide ball is legal, mankadingnis also legal

  • RP225 on June 16, 2014, 14:21 GMT

    I perfectly agree with Ian. I have observed as no nonsense person. But only itch I guess is the legal aspect. How can a person be declared out when the ball is not released? I thought for any thing to be counted, the bowler has to release the ball, right? Suppose the Bowlers mankads the non-striker, then is the ball legally counted?

  • henchart on June 16, 2014, 13:43 GMT

    @DrJez;batsmen can and should see but not assume anything while batting.Price of being run out for assuming is too less a price nay no price at all.

  • on June 16, 2014, 13:30 GMT

    Chappelli is correct to blame the game's administrators for changing the rule.

    You can almost guarantee that when they start meddling, bad things will come of it.

    The relaxation of the 'throwing' criteria looms as another classic case.

  • on June 16, 2014, 13:01 GMT

    Ian is bang on the money here. If you don't want to get run out, stay in your crease. Just try applying the logic in other contexts: suppose a batsman thinks he has reached the other end, so lifts his bat up and slows down, then gets run out. Absolutely no-one would object to him being run out. Either you've made your ground or you haven't. Similarly, either the non-striker stays in his crease until the bowler hits his delivery stride or he doesn't. If he doesn't, it's his own fault.

    The salient points are: (i) no-one is forced to leave their crease; and (ii) any batsman backing up too far is gaining an unfair advantage, by being better placed to run a short single.

    JW (author of http://www.amazon.co.uk/Court-Bowled-Tales-Cricket-Law/dp/085490140X/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&qid=1385646505&sr=8-26&keywords=cricket+law)

  • andrew-schulz on June 16, 2014, 11:17 GMT

    Wrong on two counts. You can't say batsmen were cheating under the old rule. If you are following the rule, it is not cheating. Second, when a bowler Baulks, pretends to bowl, and the non-striker leaves his crease on the assumption the ball has been bowled, that is a grey area. I predict we will see one of those in the near future. Raj-ridiculous comment. A batsman can certainly be run out if he is not trying to steal a single. There have been dozens of these in Test cricket. The short leg fielder performing a run out when the batsman has strayed. Srikanth was just out, and it is ridiculous to say that dismissal was not in the spirit of cricket.

  • on June 16, 2014, 9:54 GMT

    Perfectly fine. Nobody plays the game for charity. one run can make the difference between win and a loss. I recall the same incident when walsh had the opportunity in the 87 WC qualifiers and chose not to mankad. Result Windies could not qualify for the semifinals. Walsh's gesture was heralded as a great one. His captain Viv was devastated and absolutely furious over it since it was the last wicket.

    Chappelli is absolutely right about unfair advantage - Its the same as stumping, without warning it can become a spontaneous play and can add a new dimension to the game. Just like pickoffs happen in baseball. Does anyone call not picking of runners who take massive leads against sprit of baseball?

  • sweetspot on June 16, 2014, 9:53 GMT

    Great suggestion Chris_Howard! One run short would be great! But that won't stop batsmen from changing ends if there was an advantage to be had on who strikes during crucial overs.

    Mr. Chappell is absolutely correct indeed. I mean, where's the blooming ambiguity in such an easy, simple law? Isn't that what he's asking?

    If one team regularly gets opposition batsmen out in this method, and make no fuss about it whatsoever, the other team, I bet will learn to behave. You want to get suicidal? Be my guest.

  • Andre117 on June 16, 2014, 9:04 GMT

    Unfortunately if a bowler stops in his action to warn a non-striker for being out of his crease it always makes the fielding side look bad and like they are tarnishing the spirit of the game. How the non-striker is not tarnishing the spirit of the game by trying to steal a single (we're playing cricket, not baseball) is beyond me. Change the rules: if you're out of your crease while the ball is in play, i.e. the bowler has started his run-up, you can be run out. No warning, end of story.

  • robheinen on June 16, 2014, 8:57 GMT

    The trend is to be 'nice'. That is, when you're on the receiving end. All niceness can be left for what it is when in spite of the trend the opposition proceeds to be unnice. Then you can be unnice too. When you're at the non-receiving end you can forget about 'nice', Hten you're only nice when it's to your advantage. This trend isn't restricted to cricket. It's in all things in society. I agree by the way with the author's look on things...in general.

  • on June 16, 2014, 7:50 GMT

    @Kelum_w "Geoffrey Boycott and Michael Vaughan every ex-English cricketer sided with Matthews on his actions". Really Rikki Clarke, Greame Swann, Alec Stewart. Its more even than u think.

  • on June 16, 2014, 7:11 GMT

    I like Ian's candid opinion based on sound logic and cricket sense.

  • on June 16, 2014, 6:35 GMT

    The game has already become a batsmen dominant so does the Boards and ICC decision. Mandaking is as good as STUMPING, is a striker is taking the risk of hitting the ball to score runs or defend his wicket the same risk is applicable to the non striker. So if a non striker leaves the crease at the time of delivery if the bowler can hit the non striker stump then it is a stumping at the non striker end. Is is equivalent to a batsmen getting stumped on a wide ball. Ball not counted but the batsmen is out. This for of making a batsmen our can be named "MANKADED" the wicket goes to bowler. It is the risk of the striker or non striker to leave the crease at the point of delivery both must have equal chance of getting out. This is simple why mix it with the spirit of the game, warning, asking the captain before making a call....

  • imtiazjaleel on June 16, 2014, 6:06 GMT

    If the law allows a bowler to run the batsman out, then no point of any controversy. If the opposition teams talks that it is against spirit of game then they should be penalized for saying so. They have no right to question the bowler becoz he is following the rules. If you cannot follow the rules of Cricket then you should not play it.

  • on June 16, 2014, 5:37 GMT

    Brendon James: Good point but still I do not see why the batsman should not be penalized. He is trying to gain an unfair advantage. My memory goes back almost 32 years ago, when Indian opener Krish Srikkanth made his debut in Delhi against England. He had just played a defensive shot and his nerves showed when he forgot to go back to the crease; definitely he was not trying to steal a single..Emburey from the slip cordon threw down the stumps and England claimed the run out. If they were playing the game in best of spirits, they would have recalled the nervous debutante back. Geoff Boycott was part of that team. Point is these words like 'playing the game in right spirit' seem to be relevant only when some deem it so!

  • gdalvi on June 16, 2014, 5:22 GMT

    Spirit of game only comes in picture when there is an honest unfortunate incident - which affected the normal way cricket is played. A very good example is when recently Tendulkar got run-out in an ODI because the bowler ran in front of him to pick up the ball causing him to run around the bowler and hence losing ground. This was the time Aus could have showed spirit of game and called by Sachin - which of course did not happen. On other hand, Mankading when a batsmen is consistently advantage should really not be topic of discussion. I suggest the 3rd umpire (just like he watches no-balls), also checks if batsmen is taking unfair advantage, and let him warn the batsmen via field umpire - and leave the opposition team out of this warning business. One thing however I disagree is running out when it is last ball of session. If the ball is dead for practical purposes (fielder is returning ball to keeper and batsmen are not looking for run) - it seems silly to dismiss them this way.

  • on June 16, 2014, 4:58 GMT

    Batsmen have every advantage in today's limited over game - better bats, shorter boundaries, fielding restrictions, no balls rebowled and on top of that they have the freedom to run down the pitch before the ball bowled. Time to take mankad out of the "bad spirit" catergory and give the bowlers a chance.

  • on June 16, 2014, 1:57 GMT

    The reason why mankadding is frowned upon is that the batsmen has been given out due to under-handed deception rather than any skill on the bowler or the fieldsman. The reason why a stumping isn't frowned upon is due to the skill the bowler has shown in deceiving the batsmen in that he has beaten the batsmen. Saying that, Senanayake was in his rights to mankad Butler but only because he had given him ample multiple warnings to begin with.

  • on June 16, 2014, 1:10 GMT

    i believe that you took a safe way out here ian. you said that there is no need for the fielding team/ bowler to warn the batsman. fair enough. but you never mentioned anything about the the umpires pushing the fielding captain to withdraw the appeal which they have done on numerous occasions. the warning is still ok, however its downright unacceptable if an umpire pushes the fielding captain the withdraw the appeal. its almost the like the umpire is saying howwzat to the fielding captain while favouring the batting team. thats not neutral umpiring! it should be regarded as an umpiring offence against the spirit of the game. umpires should be fined by match referees if they do that!

  • Kelum_w on June 16, 2014, 0:50 GMT

    Apart from Geoffrey Boycott and Michael Vaughan every ex-English cricketer sided with Matthews on his actions. Adam Gilchrist had a good point saying, overstepping half a centimetre doesn't give a bowler any advantage whatsoever yet they are penalised for it. Even if a batsman isn't looking to steal a run, if they are starting a yard outside the crease of course it's going to make it easier for them to complete the run. Same principle applies when a batsman is batting outside of the crease or dances down the track to face a slow bowler, they do that to gain an advantage over the bowler and guess what can be stumped or run-out for it.

  • Culex on June 16, 2014, 0:41 GMT

    An excellent article. This sums up my views almost exactly. I just hope we'll see more "Mankads" in the future to help tighten up the game.

  • liverkewe11 on June 16, 2014, 0:10 GMT

    I would like to see it taken out of the players hands, especially given the unfair treatment of the Sri Lankan's over the issue when they did nothing wrong. Every time a player strays early, it should be the equivalent of running 'one short'. Therefore they will be losing the advantage, yet still taking on the risk of the run and potentially being run out anyway.

  • Cricket_theBestGame on June 15, 2014, 23:59 GMT

    though technically the ball is not in play yet it still applies, a rule is a rule. umpires should not be putting fielding side in "bad spirit of the game" light by asking them to withdraw the appeal. the law should be changed slightly. a batsman must remain behind the crease until the bowler lets go of the ball. if he doesn't then bowler can run him out.

    if a batsman is getting out of his crease before the ball is let go of, the bowler and umpire will be able to see it from their peripherals and next ball bowler can run him out. he can give him warning if he is feeling generous but certainly no blame should be leveled on him

  • on June 15, 2014, 23:20 GMT

    Agree, non strikers only deserve a warning if batsmen deserve a warning from being stumped by keepers.

  • ladycricfan on June 15, 2014, 21:03 GMT

    The striker starts running after he hits the ball. The non striker starts running when the ball is released. That means the non striker has more time to run the same distance than the striker. Why then the non striker should be given even more time by backing up?

  • PDAWSON3 on June 15, 2014, 20:57 GMT

    Eminent sense from Chappell and the Tiger O'Reilly story is priceless.

  • thinkgood on June 15, 2014, 20:36 GMT

    Thank you sir. This is a good article on this subject at last. Every time ICC comes up with a new rule there is ignorance of it and/or defiance of it in the presence of on field umpires themselves. I think the coaches must be educated first before they can impart what they learnt - to their team. Good Article !

  • analyseabhishek on June 15, 2014, 20:17 GMT

    Cricket is no longer an idyllic game played by so called 'gentlemen' (while the masses play soccer) but a professional sport contest passionately and eagerly. A batsman has a bat while a bowler and a fielder has a ball- and that's it. Apart from the safety aspects, there shouldn't be any obstructions to anyone playing the game.

  • on June 15, 2014, 19:29 GMT

    Once you've been warned (which isn't even a requirement -- how's that for spirit of the game?), to continue to try to steal runs by backing up too far is nothing but rude to the bowler. The first rule of the Spirit of the Game should be to treat your opponents with an appropriate level of respect and courtesy.

  • Archerthom on June 15, 2014, 19:05 GMT

    @DarthKetan: As a UK player and fan who always backed as far as possible I am also in favour of Mankading. I expected no quarter if I made a mistake and would have given none as a bowler. I know how many runs I helped my team gain through leaving my crease the moment the ball was bowled.

  • Alexk400 on June 15, 2014, 18:35 GMT

    I disagree completely. I rather have that ball is used. Penalty for batting team is best way to punish the player to doing this often. Even batsman hit six or four , umpire can notice or player can appeal to remove that run. Its not dead ball, it should be considered as penalty. But if player gets out , it become valid ball. That is what i will do.

  • gentlemans-game on June 15, 2014, 18:30 GMT

    @Rathik : I'm not sure your point about a warning for the no-ball is relevant in this context. The on-field contest is between the bowler and the batsman - the striker. If the non-striker is to be brought into it (i.e. by running him out for backing up too much), he should be warned before. I'm not saying don't run him out if he's backing up too much. But warn him.

  • on June 15, 2014, 18:28 GMT

    Can't agree more!. Absolutely spot on Ian Chappell. Yes Mankanding should be affected whenever there is a chance, and the umpires should stop this silly nonsense of asking the fielding captain whether he/she wants to go on with the appeal. Just bloody make the decision whether the batsman is out or not and get on with it, like they do with any other appeal.......

  • yorkshire-86 on June 15, 2014, 18:28 GMT

    Im English and I hate batsmen who steal yards as the bowler is running up. Watch the ball, watch the batsmen play the shot, watch where the ball goes, if it goes into a gap one of you call for the run, and only THEN leave the crease. Nothing better to see in the modern game than the nonstriker leaving the crease before both batsmen are 100% sure they want a run and he is seen off by either a mankad or the bowler getting a bit of boot on a straight drive before the ball hits the nonstrikers wicket. The non striker has a 100% protection against mankads and 'bit of boot' run outs - its called the crease and he should remain in it and be made to run the full 22 yards to earn his runs.

  • Hanumall on June 15, 2014, 18:13 GMT

    Ian is quite right. The arguments about Mankading being against the spirit of the game just don't wash however many times they are repeated and which ever way they are framed and by whomever. Delivery stride completion, bowling action completion etc are all irrelevant niceties. The only rational rule in the matter can be that once the bowler starts his run up, he may run out an out-of the crease non striker anytime he is in a position to do so.

  • GurSinghgur on June 15, 2014, 17:44 GMT

    Seems to me the present practice is thoroughly sensible. The non-striker is being reasonable when he expects the ball to leave the bowler's hand in the normal process of that bowler's action, without actually seeing it do so. But if he often pushes that to the point of being out of his ground before it does so, then one warning and he's fair game. Buttler anyway had had two warnings.

    I don't think the umpire should therefore give just a warning to the bowler for his first no-ball (which does sometimes happen, in effect) is a fair parallel nalogy: no-balling a bowler amounts to a firm warning, it doesn't end his bowling for that innings, whereas a "mankaded" batsman is OUT. (On which verb I agree with Soumya Das Gupta: Mankad deserves to live in the memory for something better than this).

  • DarthKetan on June 15, 2014, 16:18 GMT

    Glad that a respected voice in cricket agrees with what is now widely and clearly a populist opinion among fans of the game (except perhaps in England)....

  • Rathik on June 15, 2014, 16:11 GMT

    @gentlemans-game:So, the non-striker may Unknowingly be taking advantage... by the same logic the umpires should only warn the bowler for the first No-ball, since he may Unknowingly be taking advantage???

  • EdwinD on June 15, 2014, 16:06 GMT

    @nursey_ender What Jawardene said was that it was wrong to Mankad without a warning...in Buttler's case he had received more than one warning and continued to amble down the pitch - he was two yards down, not 'a few inches' as Cook claimed.

  • milepost on June 15, 2014, 15:29 GMT

    I agree. I don't understand at all how doing something within the rules of the game could contravene the spirit of cricket, that's just absurd. Run em out, like Chappell says if they value their wicket that lowly it's surely not a problem for the opposition, more of a gift.

  • gentlemans-game on June 15, 2014, 15:14 GMT

    I'm almost with you Ian. I agree non-strikers backing up too far should be targetted by the fielding side without being apologetic; but the non-striker should be warned once. Everyone's focus - the bowler, fielders, umpires, spectators, commentators, TV cameras etc - is on the striker. The striker is prepared to face the bowler. The non-striker is a support act. Targetting him without warning him that he's backing up too much is cricket's equivalent of a sucker punch. That's not acceptable even in a street brawl, and should not be in a field of play.

  • on June 15, 2014, 14:19 GMT

    Perfectly said, Mr. Ian Chappell. I totally agree with u...:)

  • on June 15, 2014, 14:05 GMT

    Great write up. I have a fundamental question about the term Mankading. I think Vinoo Mankad did good enough things to be remembered.The term mankading is showing disrespect to this legend. He is by far amongst the 2 top allrounders India has ever produced.

  • nursery_ender on June 15, 2014, 13:57 GMT

    I may have missed something but a couple of years ago Mahela said that 'mankading' was against the spirit of cricket and (I'm paraphrasing here) he wouldn't play like that. Has he expalined what has changed his mind? Other than the fact that a Sri Lankan batsman was involved on the previous occasion? Or is he no longer on speaking terms with Mathews?

  • eggyroe on June 15, 2014, 13:55 GMT

    While I agree with the sentiment of the article,I personally think the use of the word cheat is a bit over the top.All sportsmen will push the rules to gain an advantage and if the batsman is backing up to far and he is run out so be it.In my opinion the Switch Hit by batsmen should be looked at.What would be the outcome if a bowler was bowling over the wicket and 5 yards from the bowling crease swerved over and bowled a delivery from around the wicket.Would the umpire call dead ball? and that the actions of the bowler was against the spirit of the game but if a Batsman changes from batting Right Handed to Left Handed that is alright.Before people get on their high horse about the switch hit this missive has been written by an Englishman,who has over the years seen Kevin Pietersen perform the switch hit but dosn't agree with the principle or the use of the Switch Hit.

  • on June 15, 2014, 13:24 GMT

    well most of the English cricketers won't agree with this as we have seen in recent past but that's what they always do, instead of concentrating on their performance they start crying and criticising opposition, buttler dismissal was absolutely necessary and Matthew has set a great example of how things should work on cricket field

  • DrJez on June 15, 2014, 13:21 GMT

    @green_jelly. Yes that is a good point. If the batsman is doing it deliberately, knowing that he won't be mankaded, that would be very poor. I have watched the Buttler incident several times, though, and am convinced it was inadvertent on that particular occasion. I didn't see the 4th ODI to see what he was doing on other occasions.

  • green_jelly on June 15, 2014, 12:59 GMT

    DrJez said "I wish people wouldn't use the word "cheating" here..." You've got it wrong here DrJez. It is a risk only if the player and team understand that they could be dismissed fairly. It IS cheating, if upon being dismissed in this way, they claim that it is against the spirit and that they should continue to be allowed to back up unfairly (or "riskily" as you put it).

  • on June 15, 2014, 12:45 GMT

    We were taught about this as juniors. If you back up too much, you're in danger of being run out. Why is it that club cricketers grasp this, but the pampered internationals don't?

  • rizwan1981 on June 15, 2014, 11:54 GMT

    In the 4 th ODI ( the mankading of Butler by Senanayake was in the 5 th ODI ) , Bopara and Butler ran 20 twos in the space of 12 OVERS ! They were unstoppable .

    The Sri Lankan team analysed the running between the wickets and discovered that BOPARA and BUTLER were backing up unfairly - Hence , the response by Senanayake and Angelo Mathews refusal to withdraw the appeal.

  • DrJez on June 15, 2014, 11:40 GMT

    I wish people wouldn't use the word "cheating" here. If the non-striker is deliberately out of his crease, it is a risk. Same as if the striker is out of his crease. It is an attempt to gain an advantage by taking a risk (of a run-out). If they're caught they're out. But it's not cheating. If it is inadvertent, it is merely dumb. As the man says: "You must be some kind of idiot, man". It is not cheating.

  • AJ100 on June 15, 2014, 11:09 GMT

    That's perfectly said Ian. I was appalled when Cook mentioned in his interview that it tainted the spirit of the game. I guess, if you don't follow the rules, it is against the spirit than the other way round. You are absolutely spot on. No mincing here!!

    Thanks for the article.

  • py0alb on June 15, 2014, 10:41 GMT

    "Under the old law it was straightforward. If the non-striker backed up correctly (feet outside, bat inside the crease) and didn't leave his ground until the bowler released the ball, he couldn't be mankaded."

    Except, that has never been the law, and that has never been how people backed up for 100 years.

    As every junior is taught, you keep your bat in the crease until the back foot lands and the delivery stride begins. If a bowler attempts to run you out after that, dead ball should be called and he should be vilified for cheating.

  • CricPissu on June 15, 2014, 10:17 GMT

    Great article...Mahela's explantion vindicated.... Next time around, no need to warn the batsman, just take the bails off and show the non-striker the direction of the dressing room....Ian Chappell, Jayaweva !!!!!

  • ladycricfan on June 15, 2014, 10:04 GMT

    Backing up equates stealing a run. If the batsman wants to back up, he should keep the bat grounded behind the crease until the ball is released. Mr Mankad did not feel right when non striker left the crease early and more and more people are agreeing with him. Mankading is a legitimate way to runout a batsman and you will see bowlers mankading without warning. Batsmen are warned!!!!!. If you get mankaded it wil be your stupidity.

  • Chris_Howard on June 15, 2014, 9:50 GMT

    Simply give the power to either umpire to call a "short run" if they see the batsman out of his crease before the ball is released. It would solve everything.

  • southstoke49 on June 15, 2014, 9:49 GMT

    Spot on. In the previous ODI England stole several runs whicg took the total closer than it should have been. In the last one he was warned first-what more could SL do? If stealing a start is not addressed how much further will a batsman start from the crease-soon there will be 2 batsman at he on end! Also absurd for Cook to say he would never do it when England have generally used most tactics to there advantage-substitutes during 2005 Ashes springs to mind although less controversial.

  • wouldlovetoplayagain on June 15, 2014, 9:33 GMT

    Ian - Thank you for that. Absolutely spot on. Cook said "A line was crossed", and he was right, Jos Buttler crossed the popping crease unfairly!

    I hadn't heard the second part of that Wes/Redders story before - Wes, fierce competitor that he was, obviously also had a great sense of humour! He must have been a great opponent to play against.

  • on June 15, 2014, 9:31 GMT

    Brilliant article and I fully agree. If mankading is not in the spirit of the game, and the non - striker should be freely allowed to leave the non-striker's crease as and when he damn well pleases, then why even bother having the non-striker stand at the non-striker's end at the start of the over at all, have him stand mid-way down the pitch as the bowler comes up to bowl. Or even better still, as the bowler is running up to bowl, have the non-striker stand next to the bloke who is batting, and save the non-striker from the trouble of having to run at all.

  • jay57870 on June 15, 2014, 9:30 GMT

    Spot on, Ian. In baseball it's ruled: Caught base stealing - You're Outa here! Ditto for cricket. As simple as that!

  • DrJez on June 15, 2014, 9:22 GMT

    @randikaayya - the debate will never be ended in the media. It needs the ICC, or even the captains, to agree and announce that from this moment on, a mankad will be normal and acceptable. At that point, the debate ends, and not before. @IndianInnerEdge - too late I'm afraid, the name stuck years ago. But at least it is written with a small m in this article. In any case, if the mankad ever becomes fully accepted, the term will lose its negative connotation. @henchart - if you watch the Bell incident closely you will notice that the fielder picks up the ball by the boundary and then starts ambling back with the ball. He doesn't throw. Batsman sees this and assumes 4, so walks off. Then the fielder throws. Very dodgy. So recalling the batsman was right in that case.

  • londondoc on June 15, 2014, 8:55 GMT

    How refreshing to read this from Ian Chappell. No hypocricy, no mollycoddling- straight to the point with blunt forthright views. Can now imagine how great a captain he was. Hats off to the man.

  • on June 15, 2014, 8:37 GMT

    Spot on....................

  • hkiran1 on June 15, 2014, 8:17 GMT

    Either implement mankading strictly or leave out the non-striker all together. With a non striker it doesn't make sense not to run him out if he is out of his line.

  • randikaayya on June 15, 2014, 8:00 GMT

    IndianInnerEdge: respect for that comment mate, reflects my own sentiments! Regards from Sri Lanka. Well said Mr. Chappell, your valued opinion should put the debate to bed

  • on June 15, 2014, 7:38 GMT

    Well said. Perhaps there was a time it could be seen as outside the spirit of the game, but the way non-strikers now gain advantage has erradicated that.

  • soumyas on June 15, 2014, 6:26 GMT

    You are speaking my mind. this is why we love you Mr. Chappell, keep writing such articles.

  • Emerson on June 15, 2014, 5:59 GMT

    Couldn't agree more. I don't understand where the 'spirit' of the game comes into it and why more batsmen aren't mankaded. It might become a very popular form of dismissal in T20s. And bring back six bouncers per over. There should be no limit as to how many bouncers you can bowl. Imagine telling batsmen they are restricted to scoring two boundaries per over, or telling a spinner only two are allowed to turn...

  • on June 15, 2014, 5:51 GMT

    Well put by a veteran and a no nonsense cricketer. The whole cricketing world has been blinded by this now defunct, long gone idea of " spirit of cricket". The spirit of cricket is always present in all games played according to rules. If at all, the cricketers need to enshrine the true spirit or gamesmandhip, it could be in an instance like not running out a batsman when he had an unfortunate fall or losing the bat due whilst taking a single. The incidence of this nature could actually create a very pleasant atmosphere in the game and could create and carry everlasting goodwill amongst, otherwise hating, opposing teams. Well said Ian. We all know cricket adminstrators could learn a thing or two from guys like you. Please also give us your thoughts on the instances where, under the DRS system, "umpire's call" could be very unfair to one side. Should not the DRS take the decision completely away from umpires in such instances and give the most obvious decision?

  • henchart on June 15, 2014, 5:19 GMT

    Ian is right .What is wrong is attitude of both the batsman and captain of the team which is at the receiving end of being Mankaded.Kapil had Mankaded Peter Kirsten in 1992 tour of SA and the then captain of SA Kepler W had the temerity to deliberately hit Kapil on his ankles with the bat.In the latest incident also Cook's holier than thou attitude is laughable.Bell ought not have been recalled against India in 2011 summer test but Indians were practising diplomacy.Handling the ball is another mode of dismissal when batsmen expect to be given not out.Richardson in 1983 Bombay test and Steve Waugh in 1998 Madras test also come to mind.

  • notimeforcricket on June 15, 2014, 4:59 GMT

    quite right. look, when you play village cricket, the umpires are often players from the batting team, sure walking when you know you are out, trying to be honest about catches, giving courtesy warnings etc. I was once umpiring in a match (doing my 10 over stint as a member of the batting side) and some poor kid bowling could not land it on the square. he was having some kind of meltdown. I stopped calling wides after the 3rd wide and let the poor kid retreat to the field. this is profesisonal sport with cameras, umpires, referees, 3rd umpires etc. also in village cricket, where runs tend to be walked, there is little advantage in backing up too far. in professional cricket, it is perfectly possible that the stolen run, gets a tailender off strike or ends up being the difference between winning and losing - especially in 20/20

  • IndianInnerEdge on June 15, 2014, 4:55 GMT

    Nice article by Ian....&gr8 summation. Ive posted about this before and will do so again....Can some creative journo/media person come up with a better term to describe this type of dismissal and eliminate the term 'Mankad' - call it 'bowlers run out' or any other fancy jargonalese? The Mankad's were a fantastic three generation (two at test level, one at FC level) cricketing family who served indian cricket with the dignity, resilience, honest, hard working yet within the laws of the game with true sportsmanship and with a dash of joie-de-vivre, that so symbolises indian cricket (regardless of what the T20 league toting attitude fuelled moden cricketing gladiator might lead you to think). It is a travesty that the fair name of Mankad is used to symbolise with something that is controversial and 'probably' against the spirit of the game. I hope cricinfo publishes this and someone, somewhere takes note of this. and yes-provided a prior warning was given, i support this type of dismissal

  • on June 15, 2014, 4:34 GMT

    Great article. One more thing I would like to add is why on earth do the umpires ask the fielding captain to reconsider his appeal in cases of Mankading? Isn't that against the laws of the game? Thirimanne incident comes to mind. The umpires should mind their own business and declare the batsman out if he is out of his crease.

  • shihan12 on June 15, 2014, 4:01 GMT

    I think Alastair Cook first should read the law of cricket.Ian you done a great job by make people understand what mankading is all about.

  • aditya.pidaparthy on June 15, 2014, 3:22 GMT

    Aah!.. Clarity of Thought. Quite frankly, sick and tired of the sanctimonious behaviour of the English team. Grant Elliot's run-out from 2008 comes to mind. Regardless of whatever lip-service they gave later on, they sure as hell were not too concerned about the spirit of the game back then.

  • on June 15, 2014, 3:21 GMT

    brilliant article agree completely. Just another thing to add: bell runout wasn't any different to watson's runout in perth - both batsmen heading to pavilion when ball was still in play. So when watson was runout it was within the rules but when bell was runout it is against the spirit. And the same team is also complaining when butler was run out. Just ridiculous.

  • on June 15, 2014, 3:17 GMT

    Its heartening to c such a brave nd strong article from a legend! hats off

  • ambrishsundaram on June 15, 2014, 3:16 GMT

    Thank you for being the voice of sanity in the debate on this issue, Mr. Ian Chappell. For that matter, I am not even sure what the debate is about. A non-striker backing too far does not need to be warned and the bowling side is well within its rights to run him / her out. Period. The argument that the bowling side is not playing within the spirit of the game, when "mankading" the non-striker, is meaningless.

  • on June 15, 2014, 3:12 GMT

    Thank you Ian. Perfectly put.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on June 15, 2014, 3:12 GMT

    Thank you Ian. Perfectly put.

  • ambrishsundaram on June 15, 2014, 3:16 GMT

    Thank you for being the voice of sanity in the debate on this issue, Mr. Ian Chappell. For that matter, I am not even sure what the debate is about. A non-striker backing too far does not need to be warned and the bowling side is well within its rights to run him / her out. Period. The argument that the bowling side is not playing within the spirit of the game, when "mankading" the non-striker, is meaningless.

  • on June 15, 2014, 3:17 GMT

    Its heartening to c such a brave nd strong article from a legend! hats off

  • on June 15, 2014, 3:21 GMT

    brilliant article agree completely. Just another thing to add: bell runout wasn't any different to watson's runout in perth - both batsmen heading to pavilion when ball was still in play. So when watson was runout it was within the rules but when bell was runout it is against the spirit. And the same team is also complaining when butler was run out. Just ridiculous.

  • aditya.pidaparthy on June 15, 2014, 3:22 GMT

    Aah!.. Clarity of Thought. Quite frankly, sick and tired of the sanctimonious behaviour of the English team. Grant Elliot's run-out from 2008 comes to mind. Regardless of whatever lip-service they gave later on, they sure as hell were not too concerned about the spirit of the game back then.

  • shihan12 on June 15, 2014, 4:01 GMT

    I think Alastair Cook first should read the law of cricket.Ian you done a great job by make people understand what mankading is all about.

  • on June 15, 2014, 4:34 GMT

    Great article. One more thing I would like to add is why on earth do the umpires ask the fielding captain to reconsider his appeal in cases of Mankading? Isn't that against the laws of the game? Thirimanne incident comes to mind. The umpires should mind their own business and declare the batsman out if he is out of his crease.

  • IndianInnerEdge on June 15, 2014, 4:55 GMT

    Nice article by Ian....&gr8 summation. Ive posted about this before and will do so again....Can some creative journo/media person come up with a better term to describe this type of dismissal and eliminate the term 'Mankad' - call it 'bowlers run out' or any other fancy jargonalese? The Mankad's were a fantastic three generation (two at test level, one at FC level) cricketing family who served indian cricket with the dignity, resilience, honest, hard working yet within the laws of the game with true sportsmanship and with a dash of joie-de-vivre, that so symbolises indian cricket (regardless of what the T20 league toting attitude fuelled moden cricketing gladiator might lead you to think). It is a travesty that the fair name of Mankad is used to symbolise with something that is controversial and 'probably' against the spirit of the game. I hope cricinfo publishes this and someone, somewhere takes note of this. and yes-provided a prior warning was given, i support this type of dismissal

  • notimeforcricket on June 15, 2014, 4:59 GMT

    quite right. look, when you play village cricket, the umpires are often players from the batting team, sure walking when you know you are out, trying to be honest about catches, giving courtesy warnings etc. I was once umpiring in a match (doing my 10 over stint as a member of the batting side) and some poor kid bowling could not land it on the square. he was having some kind of meltdown. I stopped calling wides after the 3rd wide and let the poor kid retreat to the field. this is profesisonal sport with cameras, umpires, referees, 3rd umpires etc. also in village cricket, where runs tend to be walked, there is little advantage in backing up too far. in professional cricket, it is perfectly possible that the stolen run, gets a tailender off strike or ends up being the difference between winning and losing - especially in 20/20

  • henchart on June 15, 2014, 5:19 GMT

    Ian is right .What is wrong is attitude of both the batsman and captain of the team which is at the receiving end of being Mankaded.Kapil had Mankaded Peter Kirsten in 1992 tour of SA and the then captain of SA Kepler W had the temerity to deliberately hit Kapil on his ankles with the bat.In the latest incident also Cook's holier than thou attitude is laughable.Bell ought not have been recalled against India in 2011 summer test but Indians were practising diplomacy.Handling the ball is another mode of dismissal when batsmen expect to be given not out.Richardson in 1983 Bombay test and Steve Waugh in 1998 Madras test also come to mind.