Mankading

Most cricket fans either would have seen it by now, or least heard about it. It's been making waves on social media (like everything seems to do), the radio and the TV. It is of course the "Mankading" incident in the final over of the Under 19's World Cup match between West Indies and Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe, needed just 2 to win off the last over with just 1 wicket remaining. WI paceman Keemo Paul came running in, then this happened.

Mankading - the act of the bowler breaking the wicket at the non-striker's end as he runs up to bowl, and running out the non-striker who is walking out of his crease too early.

It was named after Indian all-rounder Vinoo Mankad who, in the second test of a tour to Australia in 1947- 48, ran out Bill Brown at the non-striker's end. Despite having done exactly the same thing earlier in the series, this incident in the Test really brought it to the attention of the public and particularly the press.

The current law is slightly confusing in it's origin, but quite clear. Historically the MCC have been the custodians of the laws of cricket but all laws created and amended by them are ratified by the ICC before being applied to matches. The original MCC law (Law 42.15) reads as follows:

The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead Ball as soon as possible.

This law was in place during the famous Vinoo Mankad Test match, and quite simply Mankad had not done anything wrong. His actions were in keeping with the laws of the game.

What many may be unaware of however, is that in 2011 the ICC tweaked this law slightly. They replaced before entering his delivery stride with before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing.

Crucially for Keemo Paul, this slight law change also meant that his actions were in keeping with the laws of the game. He has also done nothing wrong.

So why all the controversy?

Immediately after this incident, Twitter instantly went mental. (As it often does). Current players, ex-players, writers and fans all have an opinion and there seem to be few issues in cricket that have divided opinion more than mankading. Most are either vehemently against it, or can't see the problem with it.

Historically it has been accepted that if a bowler feels that the batsman is backing up too far, a warning is given before a run out is attempted. Good old spirit of the game. Growing up, I always thought this was the law of the game. You gave 1 warning, then it's fair game. But even then it never entered my head as I trundled in to bowl to mankad. Even if a prior warning was given. In 12 years of club cricket (which occasionally throws up some idiot attention-seeker who likes to show off his knowledge of the laws to make up for his crapness) I've never seen a mankading incident. In the professional game it rarely happens. Perhaps because of the inevitable press melee that will follow it. Even in professional sport, nobody wants the reputation as a bad sport. Just look at the famous Trevor Chappell under-arm ball incident and Stuart Broad not walking in the Ashes test.

I like to take a pragmatic view of it.

The bottom line is, in the laws of the game, it shouldn't be a problem. It's perfectly legal to run out a non-striker if he's backing up too much, and who can blame a bowler for doing it? Modern day bowlers, especially in one-day cricket are getting more and more flogged. They can't over step when they run in to bowl and have a strict channel in which to bowl in otherwise it's called wide. Why should a batsman be able to steal a yard without retribution? And what makes it worthy of a gentlemanly warning? It's pretty close to cheating in fact. It's always accepted that batsmen can overstep the line when it comes to the spirit of the game. They never walk when they nick it. Surely this is win for a bowler? I don't think you can escape the feeling of hypocrisy when a mankading incident is so maligned by many. I completely agree that a batsman should be more prepared to be run out if he tries to push his luck at the non-striker's end.

But in this case, I think I'm against what happened.

The psychology behind it leaves me feeling very uneasy. At no point was the Zimbabwe batsman trying to gain extra ground. Keemo Paul ran in to the crease with no intention of bowling that ball. The batsman was out of his crease by a millimetre and actually did a better job of staying in his crease than most do. Paul was simply trying it on. What's the difference between this and a batsman not walking you ask? Michael Atherton once wrote that he never walked when he edged it as he felt that in the professional game the umpires are paid to make the decision when it came to marginal calls. With the review system at present, a batsman doesn't easily get away with it now. The skill of the umpire (and they are very skilled, just like the players) was never called upon.

Overall I feel it was a sad sight that a tight match was ended by an incident like this. It just feels wrong. It doesn't feel like it should be part of the game, and it doesn't feel like a match with such importance (a quarter final place of a world cup was at stake) should be decided in the absence of a piece of cricketing skill. I think that it's this general feeling of unfairness that sways it for me. It's ugly to see an U19 player who may be the future of the game to feel comfortable trying a tactic that is so frowned upon by so many. The spirit of cricket is important. It's what makes cricket a game rather than a business.

I'm sure it'll happen again as this may have set a precendent. If it happens in a senior World Cup match, Twitter may explode..