U19 Cricket World Cup (January - February) 2016

[grkrama]

seems in though! I would say there is nothing wrong in trying to take a single once the bowler is in his delivery stride, its almost a risk as much as reward even without mankad![DOUBLEPOST=1454414503][/DOUBLEPOST]personally i think its just a dead ball in my opinion!

 

[grkrama]

This is acceptable mankading were batsman is actually taking too much advantage were the batsman is away long before ashwin is even near stumps! Even there ind just give a warning!

even this gives a warning and then goes for it

But what happened today is just exploiting the rule even then tosh to third umpires cause its clearly not out!

 

[PokerAce]

It's very obvious that non-striker batsman would be having an advantage. Remember, many run-outs have happened with just inches away from the crease. So, before the ball is being bowled, the batsman should not leave the crease. And this was by no means an accident. He knowingly left the crease. He is clearly having an advantage and is not fair. How can you not see this ?


Infact if there is anyone who is breaking the rules or not playing with the spirit of game, it's the non-striker batsman who is trying to take a run by leaving the crease early and gaining an unfair advantage.
Look,
If mankading was not there, let the non striker leave the crease and run while the bowler is still taking a run-up. Do you agree with this? No, right? As it's unfair. Now, why do you think it is fair, if the non-striker leaves the crease before ball is being delivered ? Every second, every milli-second matters. There has been many instances where batsman has survived a run-out by being inside the crease by just less than a second. This case is no different than that.

Even here, it could have been a possibility that, batsman went for a run and he would have gotten out if he had reached the crease just one second late. Now that one second (milli second, whatever) late was achieved by leaving the crease early which is not fair.

Mankading has not just come into existence today, its been around, for a while and all these points have been discussed at length. Thats why I mentioned that a custom to Mankading has developed over the years and that custom is to be respected. Thats the whole point of the spirit of the game. A non-striker is warned, if he is leaving the crease early then he is warned not to do it. If he still does it, sure Mankad him then.

Thats the whole point of spirit of the game. WI didn't give the batsman any warning and hence its a disgrace.

Now I know you will tell me that under the rules of the law a warning is not requried, but I am not talking about the rules. I am talking about something that goes beyond the rules, I am talking about the customs and the spirit of the game, which was not followed.

If we stick to the rules, then yes WI won, who is denying that. Do they look like winners to you though, or feel like winners right now? Thats the difference.

 

[PokerAce]

Also as for what Harsha Bhogle wrote, if India were on the receiving end of a significant Mankading incident, he would not shut up about what a disgrace it was, and neither would I, to be honest.

I however do it for all Mankading incidents and not just ones involving India. Coutney Walsh showed the way with Mankading in 1987 WC, and that custom is now followed. If there was no warning then no Mankading. Its that trust with which all non-strikers back up. If they are backing up too much, or enough so as not to be to the liking of the bowler, they will be told not to do it.

That near 30 yr old custom was broken today, and thats a disgrace and not on.

Backing up in itself doesn't constitute a run. If the bowler feels its too much , he can tell the non-striker to not do it. If he still does it, then Mankad him.

 

[zwarrior]

Mankading has not just come into existence today, its been around, for a while and all these points have been discussed at length. Thats why I mentioned that a custom to Mankading has developed over the years and that custom is to be respected. Thats the whole point of the spirit of the game. A non-striker is warned, if he is leaving the crease early then he is warned not to do it. If he still does it, sure Mankad him then.

Thats the whole point of spirit of the game. WI didn't give the batsman any warning and hence its a disgrace.

Now I know you will tell me that under the rules of the law a warning is not requried, but I am not talking about the rules. I am talking about something that goes beyond the rules, I am talking about the customs and the spirit of the game, which was not followed.

If we stick to the rules, then yes WI won, who is denying that. Do they look like winners to you though, or feel like winners right now? Thats the difference.

You can't call it a disgrace. That's very rude. I feel you and other people who are having a go at them in twitter, is being very harsh. When a batsman knicks a ball and is being caught but was not given not-out and he doesn't walk out, will you call him a disgrace? Even that's not in the spirit of game. No! People tell it's umpire's duty to tell him he is out/not-out. Never I have heard the word disgrace in that occasion, but why here ?

Yes, they didn't have a 'spirit of game'. But, they didn't do anything wrong. I again bring this point ( which I highlighted your points in bold), they just went by the rules. They didn't cheat. You cannot call a team 'disgrace' unless they have cheated. (match-fixing, drugs, etc). I never agree with that particular word.

Also, you seem to have neglected the points I made in the end.

Infact if there is anyone who is breaking the rules or not playing with the spirit of game, it's the non-striker batsman who is trying to take a run by leaving the crease early and gaining an unfair advantage.
Look,
If mankading was not there, let the non striker leave the crease and run while the bowler is still taking a run-up. Do you agree with this? No, right? As it's unfair. Now, why do you think it is fair, if the non-striker leaves the crease before ball is being delivered ? Every second, every milli-second matters. There has been many instances where batsman has survived a run-out by being inside the crease by just less than a second. This case is no different than that.

Even here, it could have been a possibility that, batsman went for a run and he would have gotten out if he had reached the crease just one second late. Now that one second (milli second, whatever) late was achieved by leaving the crease early which is not fair.

To sum-up what that paragraph has been, the batsman was gaining an unfair advantage knowingly. Sure, don't call that as 'unfair' and 'out of rules' (yes, again I am mentioning rules) part as an disgrace and call 'in the rules' an disgrace. Disgrace is a very strong word. I don't agree with that and I never will.

 

[greymatter776]

Well I doubt which action is against the spirit of the game?Trying to break the rules and have an advantage to take a single by starting to run even before the ball is bowled ? or trying to get the batsman out in a perfectly legal manner?
If you feel its the second one,then in that sense even stumping is against the spirit of the game......

 

[zwarrior]

Well I doubt which action is against the spirit of the game?Trying to break the rules and have an advantage to take a single by starting to run even before the ball is bowled ? or trying to get the batsman out in a perfectly legal manner?
If you feel its the second one,then in that sense even stumping is against the spirit of the game......

Exactly what I was trying to explain.

 

[PokerAce]

You can't call it a disgrace. That's very rude. I feel you and other people who are having a go at them in twitter, is being very harsh. When a batsman knicks a ball and is being caught but was not given not-out and he doesn't walk out, will you call him a disgrace? Even that's not in the spirit of game. No! People tell it's umpire's duty to tell him he is out/not-out. Never I have heard the word disgrace in that occasion, but why here ?

Yes, they didn't have a 'spirit of game'. But, they didn't do anything wrong. I again bring this point ( which I highlighted your points in bold), they just went by the rules. They didn't cheat. You cannot call a team 'disgrace' unless they have cheated. (match-fixing, drugs, etc). I never agree with that particular word.

Also, you seem to have neglected the points I made in the end.

Infact if there is anyone who is breaking the rules or not playing with the spirit of game, it's the non-striker batsman who is trying to take a run by leaving the crease early and gaining an unfair advantage.
Look,
If mankading was not there, let the non striker leave the crease and run while the bowler is still taking a run-up. Do you agree with this? No, right? As it's unfair. Now, why do you think it is fair, if the non-striker leaves the crease before ball is being delivered ? Every second, every milli-second matters. There has been many instances where batsman has survived a run-out by being inside the crease by just less than a second. This case is no different than that.

Even here, it could have been a possibility that, batsman went for a run and he would have gotten out if he had reached the crease just one second late. Now that one second (milli second, whatever) late was achieved by leaving the crease early which is not fair.

To sum-up what that paragraph has been, the batsman was gaining an unfair advantage knowingly. Sure, don't call that as 'unfair' and 'out of rules' (yes, again I am mentioning rules) part as an disgrace and call 'in the rules' an disgrace. Disgrace is a very strong word. I don't agree with that and I never will.

See you continue to miss the point about 'custom', and how its different from rules. If there was a custom of everyone walking and suddenly one person didn't do it, it would be a disgrace too, because he broke the trust that has developed by way of that custom. However in cricket the custom is not to walk but to wait for the umpire to give you out. So someone who doesn't walk is just following that custom.

With Mankading the custom is to warn if you don't like how far a person is backing up. No one and not even I am saying Mankading is wrong. However if you are to Mankad then follow the now near 30 yr custom that has developed around it. WI broke that trust today, and so even though, under the rules yes they won, but they don't look like winners to most people today.

 

[PokerAce]

Well I doubt which action is against the spirit of the game?Trying to break the rules and have an advantage to take a single by starting to run even before the ball is bowled ? or trying to get the batsman out in a perfectly legal manner?
If you feel its the second one,then in that sense even stumping is against the spirit of the game......

See this point has been discussed at length over the years, when it comes to Mankading. Of course the non-striker must complete the run from the non-striker's end. If not then why not have the non-striker just stand at the striker's end and be done with it.

So Mankading has to be there. This is where I am continually talking about rules vs custom. Over the years a Mankading custom has developed and it involves the bowler telling the non-striker not to back up too far if he feels its giving the batting side an unfair advantage that you are talking about. If the non-striker still does it then the bowler Mankads him.

So this unfair advantage you are talking of by backing up too far, its not like the bowler is helpless against it. This can be negated by simply the bowler not bowling the ball, and warning the non-striker.If the non-striker still doesn't listen, then Mankad him by all means.

However to not follow the Mankading custom is just not on.

 

[zwarrior]

See you continue to miss the point about 'custom', and how its different from rules. If there was a custom of everyone walking and suddenly one person didn't do it, it would be a disgrace too, because he broke the trust that has developed by way of that custom. However in cricket the custom is not to walk but to wait for the umpire to give you out. So someone who doesn't walk is just following that custom.

With Mankading the custom is to warn if you don't like how far a person is backing up. No one and not even I am saying Mankading is wrong. However if you are to Mankad then follow the now near 30 yr custom that has developed around it. WI broke that trust today, and so even though, under the rules yes they won, but they don't look like winners to most people today.

I understand what you are telling. But this 'custom' is not signed as treaty or agreement by anyone. It's upon each individual/team. So, it's not like everyone has to follow that. And yes, today it is different 'custom' which you were saying.

But, my point is what @greymatter776 posted and I repeatedly told. When non-striker broke the rules ( unlike 'custom', 'rules' are written, agreed by everyone), why in gods name is no one talking about a rule broken by him in the first place? You told this 'custom' is being followed since so many years. But, these 'rules' are followed since much more years than 'custom'. And, if it was an accident (like he was holding bat and it fell and hence he was out of crease or anything else), I would honestly agree with you. But, this was knowingly breaking that rule. I am sure there is no 'custom' that anyone can break this rule.

Forget everything. Answer this. In the first place, why should he break the rule? Is there any 'custom' that one should break this rule and follow those 'customs' of warning and such things?? Custom comes later. Rules come in first. I will agree with 'custom' if it were an accident, but this was by no means an accident(like he was holding bat and it fell and hence he was out of crease) and hence I don't agree with you or the rest who is supporting that batsman.

 

[PokerAce]

I understand what you are telling. But this 'custom' is not signed as treaty or agreement by anyone. It's upon each individual/team. So, it's not like everyone has to follow that. And yes, today it is different 'custom' which you were saying.

See again a Custom is never a signed treaty or agreement. Its one of the key points of custom. A custom around something is a practice that is over the years accepted in a locality, community etc. as the right way of doing something. No one ever signs on it, or an formal agreement ever takes place. Its just a way of doing things that develops over the years.

In the cricket community, a custom around Mankading has developed, that keeps in mind all the things like unfair advantage and what not. Despite all that, the custom around Mankad is to warn the player first, which was not followed.

Think of a custom like when a great player walks out to bat his final innings he is given a guard of honor. There is no rule that says do it, but its a custom that has developed. Now if a team doesn't give guard of honor to a great player walking in for the final innings, then would you say its okay? By your logic since there is nothing in the rules, its okay not to do it. I would call it a disgrace too. By your logic not giving a great player a guard of honor would be okay though, as a team is not required within the rules of the game to do so. Customs involve an implied trust, and if that trust is broken on the field its a disgrace.

I will give you another example. There was an India vs SL game, and Sehwag was batting one run short of a 100 and incidentally India required 1 run to win. SL bowler to ensure Sehwag doesn't get a 100, deliberately bowled a wide. Now would you say this is in the spirit of the game? By your logic under the rules there is nothing wrong with bowling a wide, bowling a wide is with the rules of the game.

However what the bowler did is just not on.

Just because doing something is/would be within the rules of the game, doesn't mean it is/would be also in the spirit of the game. Mankading a batsman without warning is one such instance.

 

[greymatter776]

I will give you another example. There was an India vs SL game, and Sehwag was batting one run short of a 100 and incidentally India required 1 run to win. SL bowler to ensure Sehwag doesn't get a 100, deliberately bowled a wide. Now would you say this is in the spirit of the game? By your logic under the rules there is nothing wrong with bowling a wide, bowling a wide is with the rules of the game.

I think whether to respect or not to respect Mankading without warning is a personal choice and I think discussing the same thing over and over again is not going to benefit in any manner.You are right with your points on customs and so is he right with his points about it not being against the spirit of the game imo.


And it wasn't a wide, it was a no-ball, which if my memory serves me right,was dispatched for a six.But since the no-ball occured first Sehwag wasn't able to score his century !

 

[PokerAce]

And it wasn't a wide, it was a no-ball, which if my memory serves me right,was dispatched for a six.But since the no-ball occured first Sehwag wasn't able to score his century !

Yeah I checked it was a no-ball as you said.

But still the larger point remains the same.

 

[stefan]

Disgraceful behavior by West Indies. Might be ok as far as the rules go but totally against the spirit of the game.

 

[PokerAce]

Anyway the Quarter Finals for the Elite Group are almost settled-

1) India vs Namibia
2) B'desh vs Nepal
3) England vs Pak/SL -whoever loses
4) WI vs Pak/SL - whoever wins.[DOUBLEPOST=1454422304][/DOUBLEPOST]Also in all of this Mankading talk there is potentially a far more diabolical scandal that has gone un-noticed.

It involves the Nepal U19 captain and its possible that he is 25 yrs old !!

Raju Rijal or Raju Sharma: Mistaken identity or a 25-yr-old in U-19 World Cup? | The Indian Express