The Independent Voice of West Indies Cricket

Message Board Archives

HEADLINE: Is mankading any worse than sledging?

 
CaribbeanCricket.com 2016-02-07 19:52:43 

Why do those who quote the spirit of cricket tend to do so only when it's convenient? 

Ian Bishop's first reaction when Keemo Paul whipped off the bails with Zimbabwe's No. 11, Richard Ngarva, backing up in last Sunday's decisive Under-19 World Cup match in Bangladesh was: "Oh no!"
As TV umpire Tim Robinson checked the video replay on whether or not the last man's bat was out of his ground, the former West Indies fast bowler, now a globetrotting commentator, added: "It's sad if it ends that way." It did, as Ngarva's bat was shown to be on but not within the crease.
After watching a fascinating, fluctuating match on the other side of the planet, my sentiments corresponded with Bishop's. West Indies required one wicket and Zimbabwe three runs to win for one or the other to move into the quarter-finals.


Full Story

 
Norm 2016-02-07 20:14:34 

Those who think that mankading is wrong are still being duped by the section of the Aussie press that could not accept that an Indian dared to interpret the Laws of Cricket in a manner they hadn't foreseen.

Mankad was right, as was Paul.

Paul had earlier effected another brilliant run out against England when he was bowling and the striker stepped out of his crease after playing the ball back to the bowler.

Paul took aim at the wicket and hurled the ball. The batsman realized too late what the bowler was doing and his attempt to block the ball, which would have been both against the laws and the spirit of the game, failed.

Many bowlers throw, or threaten to throw the ball back at the batsman after the ball was struck with the bat, for no other reason but to intimidate the batsman. THAT is against the spirit of the game.

 
Maispwi 2016-02-07 20:55:59 

Wat an inappropriate headline. A bowler running out the non-striker while running in to bowl is part of the laws of cricket. Sledging depends on the discretion of the umpire as to if he considers the action ungentlemanly

 
jacksparrow 2016-02-07 21:06:20 

Cozier has redeemed himself with me after this article, even though I didn't like the closing.
He is right, people choose to invoke "spirit of the game" when it suits them.Further, as I contended before, running out of the non striker is allowed under the Laws, there are no caveats, and thus has absolutely nothing to do with the Spirit of the Game.

 
granite 2016-02-08 11:00:29 

Mankading is cheating,and should be removed as a form of getting a batsman out,I'm sure,another form of punishment could be used,to stop batsmen backing up too far.

 
bobby 2016-02-08 11:03:32 

In reply to granite
What a crock. So the batsman gaining an advantage on a run is not cheating? The game is already skewered in favour of batsmen, why don't we just say that batsmen can't be out no matter what.

 
JahJah 2016-02-08 11:05:57 

In reply to granite

granite fi brains indeed. What a stupid post.

 
skb 2016-02-08 13:53:39 

Maybe they should treat it like a no ball...if you over the crease at delivery call a no ball subtract 4 runs or something like that.

 
Chrissy 2016-02-08 14:03:13 

Tony misses the key point - Cricket is about gambling - always has been. That's the reason for laws. The preamble (spirit)was for the folks who lost most of the bets - the up and coming money.

The elites thrived.

Good read Tony. lol

 
Bigzinc 2016-02-08 14:06:57 

In reply to granite

Mankading is cheating,and should be removed as a form of getting a batsman out,I'm sure,another form of punishment could be used,to stop batsmen backing up too far.



Yep, run them out and call it a run out. big grin big grin big grin

 
JahJah 2016-02-08 14:17:45 

In reply to skb

The rule is fine as it is. If you're trying to do like in baseball and steal base then be prepared to be tagged/run out.

 
Discourse 2016-02-08 14:33:57 

In reply to granite

41.2 short, pulled, gloved ... on my Lord, what has Hales done?! It took an eternity for the finger to go up but his guilty look probably pulled his own trigger! A lobbed chance to de Kock as Hales grabbed at his chance for three figures, and well, that non-jinxy statement has had its non-intended non-effect! 202/5

the sucker did not walk 'in the spirit of the game'....even after the ump gave him nuffff time but that's 'sporting'.

 
Chrissy 2016-02-08 14:54:55 

In reply to Discourse

Different rules fi different folks - dem een fooling anyone these days.