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?

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

  • vas 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.

  • Chatty 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.

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

    Agree with the article - tooth and nail :D

  • Suleman 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).

  • Dummy4 on June 16, 2014, 16:37 GMT

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

  • Dummy4 on June 16, 2014, 15:58 GMT

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

  • Rajagopalan 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?

  • Shruti 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.

  • Dummy4 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.

  • Dummy4 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)

  • No featured comments at the moment.