Mankads

[Mantis]

Re: Mankads

You really have no clue on this do you?

[ledge]

Re: Mankads

You really have no clue on this do you?

I have been playing the game since i was 11 and still play it now and i am 44,have run juniors, done it all.
Think you will find i do have a clue.
What i am pointing out is how much easier and fairer can it be than to do it that way?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Mankads

Which is when?

Presumably before the bowler has bowled, otherwise you wouldn't be run out, would you?

[Mantis]

Re: Mankads

I have been playing the game since i was 11 and still play it now and i am 44,have run juniors, done it all.
Think you will find i do have a clue.
What i am pointing out is how much easier and fairer can it be than to do it that way?

The rule clearly states that you can leave your crease when the bowler starts his delivery action NOT when the ball leaves his hand.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Mankads

The rule clearly states that you can leave your crease when the bowler starts his delivery action NOT when the ball leaves his hand.

I don't see how it can be cheating? If the ump gives it then its out. Just like appeal for an LBW that you don't think is out.

If mankad is cheating then so is gaining an extra few centimetres advantage by leaving the crease before the bowler bowls it.

[Twodogs]

Re: Mankads

I didn't know we had been anywhere before.

The Laws of the game are explicit. If a side refuses to play ....... the match is awarded to the other side. What alternative did the umpires and I stress umpires have. The Law had been pointed out to Inzamam.

What about his actions? Unhappy with the umpires' decision, he doesn't come out after tea and half an hour goes by.

I simply fail to see why Hair should cop the treatment he got. I probably shouldn't be saying this but Hair is not my best mate among the umpiring fraternity but this isn't about mates.

As for the comment that Hair only thinks about Hair, where does this come from? He pings a bloke who blatantly chucks and cops flack for it.They should have given him a medal.

At least he had the guts to do what is right unlike the administrators who cave into political pressure from the Asian bloc because of the financial muscle they wield.

Then he, along with his mate award a match under the Laws while the administrators including the referee all hide elsewhere unwilling to do anything about the disgraceful conduct of a Test captain who spits the dummy over a decision and refuses to come out to play.

This is precisely why the Law exists.

By the way, I hope my comments remain in this forum. We may need to move Merv into the Dog's Breakfast

Werd brother.


The Sub Continental mafia will run test cricket into the ground.



BTW I love the debate about whether it's cheating. SS and Mantis are both right because it's legal and a dogs act. Under the old system I dont think I'd do it first up but if the non striker did it again I'd have no qualms at all. Then again I say that while I'm sitting in front of the computer...

[ledge]

Re: Mankads

The rule clearly states that you can leave your crease when the bowler starts his delivery action NOT when the ball leaves his hand.

I know the rule but in my opinion the way i pointed it out is the way it should be,

[Mantis]

Re: Mankads

I know the rule but in my opinion the way i pointed it out is the way it should be,

So your the rule maker now?

[Twodogs]

Re: Mankads

So your the rule maker now?

Everyone can have an opinion, cant they?

[ledge]

Re: Mankads

So your the rule maker now?

I said in, my opinion, as you and everyone else is not happy with all rules,and we all have different ideas on some rules we think are silly or could be refined.
I have just mentioned how i think it should be.
We all abide by rules, doesnt mean we agree with them.
Wish i was the rule maker because i would certainly change that one.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Mankads

Your preference is in accordance with the law prior to 2000 and as applicable when you played most of your cricket.

The Law as stated by Mantis came into effect in the review of 2000.

Yes, it gives the non-striker a bit of a start but it also removes the unsavoury incidence of the bowler conning the non-striker into thinking he is delivering the ball and then holding back the delivery to run him out.

[Mantis]

Re: Mankads

Your preference is in accordance with the law prior to 2000 and as applicable when you played most of your cricket.

The Law as stated by Mantis came into effect in the review of 2000.

Yes, it gives the non-striker a bit of a start but it also removes the unsavoury incidence of the bowler conning the non-striker into thinking he is delivering the ball and then holding back the delivery to run him out.

Very true.

The head start that you receive can be over-rated. Nothing worse than you leaving your crease by a metre or so and then to see your batting partners perfect straight drive deflected into the stumps, running you out.

I suppose that's a bit off topic and as EJ pointed out it all comes back to the bowler and the lengths and which he goes to to get a wicket. If you have to stoop down to man-kadding someone then as I have stated before you should give up.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Mankads

One notable Mankad I witnessed was performed by Prahran captain, Patrick Smith (sports writer for the Australian) at Junction Oval.

The next man in was Nigel Murch (captain of S Kilda) who went very close to wrapping the bat around Smith's head.

I often laugh to myself when I read a Smith article debating the rights and wrongs of sport

[Twodogs]

Re: Mankads

One notable Mankad I witnessed was performed by Prahran captain, Patrick Smith (sports writer for the Australian) at Junction Oval.

The next man in was Nigel Murch (captain of S Kilda) who went very close to wrapping the bat around Smith's head.

I often laugh to myself when I read a Smith article debating the rights and wrongs of sport

Smith was the bowler who walked down the pitch and punched Footscray's Tony Paone in the face. The man is a hypocrite of the first ****ing order and one of the bigggest arseclowns God ever pumped breath into.

[Twodogs]

Re: Mankads

Very true.

The head start that you receive can be over-rated. Nothing worse than you leaving your crease by a metre or so and then to see your batting partners perfect straight drive deflected into the stumps, running you out.

I suppose that's a bit off topic and as EJ pointed out it all comes back to the bowler and the lengths and which he goes to to get a wicket. If you have to stoop down to man-kadding someone then as I have stated before you should give up.

How low would you stoop though? Would you appeal for ball handling? Obstructing the field? Would you run a runner running for an injured batsmen, if the proper batsman was in his ground? What if the batsman calls very loudly for a single as a fielder is about to catch him therefore putting him off? Cricket is played to be won surely?

When googlie bowlers first appeared on the scene a lot of cricketers called them cheats and wanted them banned. If they'd had their way then one of the most intriguing facets of the game would have been lost to us.


The nonstriker sneaking ground is taking just as much of a liberty as the bowler running him out IMO. Anyway it's all academic because under the current rule we're never going to see another mankad.