So what is the Mankad Run Out? So what is the Mankad Run Out? So what is the Mankad Run Out? Tags: Cricwaves Columns Published on: Feb 22, 2012 The Mankad Run Out is a very rare dismissal in Cricket. Its not something that gets mentioned in each and every match. But yesterday’s incident at the Gabba when India bowler R Ashwin appealed for a Mankad Run Out against Sri Lankan Lahiru Thirimanne, the rare dismissal once again got into the limelight. So what is the Mankad Run Out? Well its the Run Out of the non-striker by the bowler without releasing the ball when he finds that the former is backing out of his crease way too early! Its a bizarre situation where the ball doesn’t get recorded but the wicket is deemed to have fallen that of the non-striker who was caught backing out of the crease even before the bowler had released the ball to the striker. Generally, its for the bowlers to first warn the non-striker that he has to stay in the crease according to the law of the game in presence of the Umpire.

And even then, if the non-striker continues to do so, the bowler is entitled to run him out during his delivery stride. The ICC Law regarding this doesn’t state of any prior warning to be given but its expected to be given by the bowler for keeping up the spirit of the game. It is fair for the non-striker to leave his crease when the ball is released by the bowler to the striker so that he can cover some distance already which is crucial in stealing the quick runs. However, if the non-striker does that even before the ball is released, it comes under unfair play and he could be run out by the bowler! The Mankad Run Out is also called as ‘Mankaded’. The name comes from one of India’s greatest cricketers - Vinoo Mankad. The late Vinoo Mankad was the first player in international cricket to actually run out a non-striker backing up at his crease even before the ball was released.

That famous incident took place on December 13, 1947 when Vinoo Mankad in his delivery stride ran out Australian Bill Brown who was backing out of his crease at the non-striker in a Test Match at the Sydney Cricket Ground. Vinoo Mankad was criticized severely for breaching the sportsman’s spirit. But his style of dismissing Bill Brown had come after a similar dismissal to the same batsman in a tour match for the Indians against an Australian XI and also giving the batsman a prior warning in the Test Match. It can be debated that some players unknowingly have the habit of leaving their crease too early and in that moment can be caught off-guard! Ever since that incident in Sydney wayback in 1947, any run out happening in this fashion was named as Mankad Run Out or simply Mankaded! The last time a batsman got out in this fashion was in 1992/93 when the great India all-rounder Mankaded South Africa’s premier batsman Peter Kirsten in a One Day International at Port Elizabeth.

A heated argument took place between a furious Peter Kirsten and Kapil Dev but it did not stop the Umpires from upholding the Mankad Run Out. There were three instances in international cricket that have been recorded with the bowler finding the non-striker off-guard backing-up but then refusing to claim the wicket. West Indies fast bowler Courtney Walsh refused to claim the run out of Pakistan’s Saleem Jaffar in the 1987 Reliance World Cup match. It was a decision that backfired on the West Indies as it cost them a place in the Semi-Finals of the World Cup but something that gave Walsh a special place in upholding the spirit of the game. In another instance, in 2003, Bangladesh’s left-arm spinner Mohammad Rafique too sacrificed a Mankad style of running out Pakistan’s Umar Gul in a Test Match at Multan. Had Rafique done that, Bangladesh would have pulled off an upset win over hosts Pakistan but it was instead Inzamam-ul-Haq taking his side to a 1-wicket win.

The third instance of a possible Mankad Run Out was of course seen yesterday at the Gabba but the Indian team didn’t want to take the criticism of going against the spirit of the game and decided to take Lahiru Thirimanne’s mistake lightly.

Here are the instances of the Mankad Run Out recorded in International Cricket till date : History of Mankading in Test Matches * Bill Brown Mankaded by Vinoo Mankad, Australia Vs India, Sydney, 1947-48 * Ian Redpath Mankaded by by Charlie Griffith, Australia Vs West Indies, Adelaide, 1968-69 * Derek Randall Mankaded by Ewen Chatfield, New Zealand Vs England, Christchurch, 1977-78 * Sikander Bakht Mankaded by Alan Hurst, Australia Vs Pakistan, Perth, 1978-79 History of Mankading in One Day Internationals * Brian Luckhurst Mankaded by Greg Chappell, England Vs Australia, Melbourne, 1974-75 * Grant Flower Mankaded by Dipak Patel, Zimbabwe Vs New Zealand, Harare, 1992-93 * Peter Kirsten Mankaded by Kapil Dev, South Africa Vs India, Port Elizabeth, 1992-93 Here is what exactly ICC Law 42.15 relating to Fair and Unfair play states Bowler attempting to run out non-st

riker before delivery "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 possible.' - Compiled by BV Swagath Related News Mankad debate reopens ahead of World T20 | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo World T20 2016 March 8, 2016 Mankad debate reopens ahead of World T20 22 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Comment 22 File photo - R Ashwin gives Steven Smith a warning after attempting to mankad him in the IPL © AFP The ICC match referee Andy Pycroft has reportedly told the Oman team management that the other teams playing the first round of the World T20 in Dharamsala had agreed not to mankad batsmen. Oman, however, stuck to their stance of wanting to mankad, only budging to agree to give the batsman a warning.

Mankading - the run-out of a non-striker backing up before the ball is delivered - has become more common in a highly competitive environment and is a hotly debated subject because it is considered not to be within the spirit of the game, though it is a legal form of dismissal. In fact, ESPNcricinfo has learned that before the Asia Cup qualifying round, the Asian Cricket Council met with the four Associate teams and instructed them not to mankad. Oman's Aamir Kaleem, however, mankaded Hong Kong's Mark Chapman in the tournament. That dismissal came shortly after West Indies Under-19 bowler Keemo Paul had mankaded the last Zimbabwe wicket to win a knockout match in the World Cup in Bangladesh. The view of the other teams in Dharamsala regarding mankading - as conveyed by Pycroft to Oman - rung true during Ireland pre-match press conference. When asked if they had discussed Oman's stance on the mankad, Ireland captain William Porterfielsd made it clear that it was not how he wanted to play cricket. "That is not something that we will be doing," Porterfield said. "That is not something I necessarily agree with.

To each their own, I guess. If they feel it is a genuine way of taking a wicket, it is up to them, how they want to play the game. It is not for me [to judge them]. We will make sure we stand the ground. We have just got to accept that is the way they will go about it, if they do about it that way." Sultan Ahmed, the Oman captain, said he did not see why a bowler should not run out a batsman who is taking unfair advantage. "If they don't want us to mankad, why is it in the rules then?" he asked. "We saw in the under-19 World Cup that West Indies manakded, and went on to win the cup." When asked what he made of the debate around the spirit of cricket, Ahmed asked the batsmen to follow the spirit too. "It is not us who are in breach of the spirit," he said. "It is the batsmen who is violating the spirit by stealing yards even before the bowler has bowled. It is almost cheating." It is interesting that the ICC felt it necessary to bring up mankading on the eve of the World Twenty20.

One of the match referee's jobs is to anticipate and tackle trouble before it occurs, but what exactly is the trouble in this case is ambiguous. As the game gets increasingly professional and the stakes higher, especially for these teams: only one out of four goes through to the main draw, it is time the ICC formalised its view as opposed to holding unofficial meetings before the start of a tournament. Sidharth Monga is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo © ESPN Sports Media Ltd. Jos Buttler's 'Mankad' run out by Sri Lanka's controversial spinner Sachithra Senanayake sparking boos at Edgbaston | Daily Mail Online comments Jos Buttler was the victim of a 'Mankad' dismissal during England's one-day international - and the perpetrator was controversial Sri Lanka spinner Sachithre Senanayake. Buttler, the new golden boy of English cricket, was run out by the bowler backing up. The fact he was out of his crease meant the dismissal was legitimate - especially as the batsman was twice warned in the spinner's previous over.

Despite being legal it is seen as some as against the spirit of the game and the fact it was Senanayake - who was reported for a suspect bowling action the day before the match - only added controversy. Not in the spirit? Sachithra Senanayake appeals for the run out of Jos Buttler at the non-striker's end LAW 42.15 The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, 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 possible. ICC Standard ODI Match Playing Conditions Law 42.15 shall be replaced by the following: The bowler is permitted, before he releases the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, 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 The practice is named after Indian Vinoo Mankad, who ran out the Australian Bill Brown during a Test in 1947/48. The act infuriated by Aussies and has been known as 'Mankading' ever since. The dismissal sparked quite a reaction, with Graeme Swann tweeting: 'I think if I'd been called for chucking I'd try to keep a low profile for a while rather than pull out the mankad!!! Incredible scenes!' He later added: 'To be clear on this I think the mankad is just wrong even though it's not illegal. Like cuddling your sister whilst watching a film.' Former England captain Michael Vaughan waded in with his opinion and his ire was aimed at Sri Lanka skipper Angelo Mathews. Captains usually decide to call the batsman back in these instances but Mathews did not and Vaughan tweeted: 'Totally blame the Captain... He is the man who makes the decisions and should have over turned the decision... No way to play the game...' Ah, go on!

Senanayake tries to persuade the umpire to give Buttler run out and was eventually successful Former England captain Alec Stewart added: 'The spirit of cricket has been broken but Sri Lanka are within their rights to uphold the appeal. The laws of the game allow this dismissal.' Warwickshire all-rounder Rikki Clarke raged: 'That is absolutely rubbish. Can't get Jos Buttler out normally that they have to do that.' And former Manchester United and Everton footballer Phil Neville - a good junior cricketer - gave his two penn'orth, saying: I got run out like that once -greemount vs glodick away I was 11 playing in 3rd xl - it nearly started a full scale riot!!' England were all out for 219. Off you go: Umpire Michael Gough gives Buttler out after he was 'Mankaded' by Senanayake A Short History of Mankading | Cricket Web A Short History of Mankading 12:00am GMT 09 June 2014 A Short History of Mankading In 1947/48 India toured Australia for the first time.

There were five Tests, four of them won very easily by Australia, whose skipper Donald Bradman averaged the small matter of 178.75. Despite their drubbing several of the Indians, who were without their leading batsman Vijay Merchant, emerged with credit. All-rounder Vinoo Mankad, a fine orthodox left arm spinner, was one of them. The fifth match of the tour was against a strong Australian XI, and India ran out winners by 47 runs. In the Australian second innings Mankad warned the Australian opener, Bill Brown, that he was backing up too far. When he did it again Mankad whipped off the bails, appealed, and Brown had to go. The Australians were attempting to score 251 to win at 100 per hour, so were chasing hard. Mankad took 8-84 in the innings, and in the words of The Cricketer’s correspondent The crowd realised the fairness of the bowler’s action and cheered him. Less than a month later the same thing happened in the second Test, at the Sydney Cricket Ground. This was the game that India drew.

The weather had the last word in the end but despite the tourists being dismissed for only 188 they still secured a first innings lead of 81. This was a different situation in that there was no run chase on, nor according to some sources was there any warning given. This time The Cricketer commented that ….. the bowler was, of course, perfectly within his rights. The crowd reaction is not recorded, although 40 years later a letter appeared in the magazine suggesting that once again the spectators had been magnanimous towards Mankad. There was some controversy, indeed Mankad’s biographer described it as a terrific commotion. Bradman was moved to express the view in an autobiography that was published a couple of years later; The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker 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? It seems that was the view of most. Brown himself never complained, and indeed his Wisden obituary states that he maintained he had been warned on both occasions, and Bradman referred to a warning as well.

Only one member of the Indian side ever wrote an autobiography, Vijay Hazare, but despite going into print as many as three times, in 1964, 1974 and 1981, rather disappointingly he doesn’t mention either dismissal. Contemporary writers, including former First Class player John “Ginty” Lush, maintained there was no warning. Ever since 1948 this means of running a batsman out has been known, not very imaginatively, as “mankading”. It was extremely rare. Prior to those two incidents as far as I can see the only previous occasion a batsman had been run out in this way in the 20th century was a decade earlier when Khadim Hussain, bowling to young Joe Hardstaff in a tour match between Sind and Lionel Tennyson’s XI, did the self-same thing. The incident is noted in Gerald Brodribb’s miscellany on the laws, Next Man In, but neither Wisden nor a recent biography of Hardstaff even mentions it in passing, so it cannot have ruffled too many feathers. The concept was not however wholly unknown. There were incidents where warnings were given.

One that must have been entertaining came in a County Championship match between Surrey and Yorkshire. The bowler was Emmott Robinson, as Yorkshire as a pint of Theakstons and a slice of Parkin cake, and the non-striker Douglas Jardine. Emmott stopped in his delivery stride and, with Jardine three or four yards towards the other end, said “Nah then, hev I to do it?” Sadly the Iron Duke’s response is not, as far as I am aware, recorded anywhere. In 1956 there was a mankading in a County Championship fixture for the first time in more than 60 years and, possibly, for only the second time ever. This dismissal took place early on in the game before it had even begin to take shape. The bowler was Glamorgan skipper Wilf Wooller. A bustling pace bowler Wooller was old school, and a rumbustuous character not given to suffering fools gladly. He would not normally have entertained the idea of mankading an opponent, but after Essex opener Geoff Barker was still transgressing after three warnings no doubt felt his actions totally justified.

An interesting perpetrator was West Indian quick Charlie Griffith, who was responsible for the first Caribbean mankading in 1963/64. The incident is not mentioned in his autobiography though, so presumably he was not particularly proud of what he did. Much more surprising is the action of part-time off spinner Barry Richards in mankading Ray Gripper in 1968/69 when playing for Natal against Rhodesia. Quite why a specialist batsman would do that is beyond me, the more so as Richards apparently gave no warning. Perhaps it is no surprise in the circumstances that there is no mention of the game, which appears to have been drifting towards an inevitable draw at the time, in Richards’ autobiography. A couple of months after the Richards incident Test cricket saw its second mankading. The man responsible was Griffith, and the batsman Australia’s Ian Redpath. The Australians were looking for quick runs, and there was no warning given. At the next interval West Indies skipper Garry Sobers went into the Australian dressing room and apologised. As Australia ended up 20 short of victory with their last pair at the crease it may have been a crucial move.

The Australian crowd were incensed, but then Big Bad Charlie was that sort of character. In the press it was notable that men like Tiger O’Reilly and Keith Miller, neither of whom would surely have contemplated doing the same thing, both came out in favour of Griffith, and one or two, although not Griffith, pointed out that the Australians as a team had been warned earlier in the proceedings when Ian Chappell’s attention was drawn to the issue by David Holford. Griffith did mention this one in his book, and not surprisingly quoted my old friend Keith Miller at some length. Next time Redpath encountered Griffith he got a crack on the head for his trouble, but there is no suggestion that Griffith disliked him more than any other opposing batsman. Redpath certainly had a tendency to try and steal a march on the fielding side and found himself mankaded again five years later, when he was caught out backing up too far by Western Australia’s pace bowler Dennis Baker. The umpire quite properly gave Redpath out, but Wests skipper John Inverarity was allowed to withdraw the appeal and Redpath was reinstated.

Derek Randall was Test cricket’s next victim, at the hands of Ewan Chatfield in 1977/78. There was no warning then, although a pointed remark from the bowler to his mid off designed for Randall to hear was uttered. England were not happy, and Chatfield lost his place for a while. No causal link was ever acknowledged, but certainly Chatfield felt let down. At the time England were chasing quick runs. From reading a number of accounts of the incident it seems certain that the “warning” was given, but that in all probability Randall, concentrating on his innings, didn’t take it in. Just over a year after the Randall episode came another mankading, and an object lesson in the potential this mode of dismissal has for creating ill-feeling. It was a two match series in Australia involving Pakistan. The visitors won the first Test so Australia had to win the second. They took a fifty run first innings lead but then Asif Iqbal scored a superb century whilst marshalling the tail extremely well. With one wicket to fall Pakistan were 235 in front with Asif and Sikander Bakht having put on 20 for the last wicket.

Sikander was, to the obvious frustration of Aussie paceman Alan Hurst, backing up a long way as Asif looked to take the singles he needed to farm the bowling. Eventually, without a specific warning, Hurst mankaded Sikander. So furious were the Pakistanis that during the Australians’ successful pursuit of victory when non-striker Alan Hilditch picked the ball up to return it to the Pakistanis after a wayward throw, Sarfraz Nawaz appealed for Handled the Ball and Hilditch had to go. It was probably a good job that there were just the two Tests in that series. Rather different were events in a Test match in Multan in 2003 between Pakistan and Bangladesh. These were the days when the Tigers had never won a Test, and never looked like doing so. Here though they took a first innings lad of 106, and then had the disappointment in their second innings of seeing Alok Kapali’s knock cut short by the home ‘keeper, Rashid Latif, claiming a non-existent catch. In the end it was heartbreak for the Banglas as a matchwinning innings from Inzamam saw Pakistan home.

With the home side eight down and Inzamam manipulating the strike with aplomb the visitors’ much respected left arm spinner, Mohammed Rafique, found himself with a mankading opportunity. He chose to warn Umar Gul instead and, arguably, cost his side the game. As time has passed the game has become more professional, and the stakes much higher for those involved in the international game. The tradition of giving a warning to a batsman, and a tradition is exactly what it is as the need for a warning has never been enshrined in the laws, has continued. Stealing runs is more relevant in the game’s shorter formats than in Test cricket and there have been a number of incidents in ODIs down the years, going right back to 1974/75 when Brian Luckhurst suffered the fate at the hands of Greg Chappell. At opposite ends of the “ill-will” spectrum were Kapil Dev’s appeal against Peter Kirsten in 1992/93 and Courtney Walsh’s warning to Saleem Jaffar in the 1987 World Cup.

Somewhere between the two was Virender Sehwag’s decision to withdraw an appeal after Ravichandran Ashwin had mankaded Lahiru Thirimanne in 2012. The so-called Friendship Tour of India to South Africa in 1992/93 turned sour when, in the second ODI, Kapil mankaded Kirsten without any notice on the day, but after three previous warnings on the tour. Kirsten was furious as were all the South Africans whose skipper, Kepler Wessels, later struck Kapil across the shins with his bat. Fortunately for Wessels match referee Clive Lloyd decided there was insufficient evidence of intent and he escaped censure. It was Kapil’s turn to be furious. As for Walsh as he ran in to bowl in Lahore the last Pakistan pair were at the wicket and they needed just four to win off the last ball. Walsh approached his delivery stride with Jaffar in no man’s land. Clearly not from the Griffith school of Caribbean pace bowling however, Walsh chose to warn Jaffar rather than mankad him.

When the delivery was finally bowled Abdul Qadir got the boundary needed, and West Indies missed out on a semi-final place. Mankading dismissals remain rare, but are back in the news in England because of Joss Buttler’s innings in the deciding ODI last week. England skipper Alistair Cook is no Bradman, and he proved that once and for all by his comments after the game. The reality is that Buttler can have no complaint, and nor should Cook. England’s great new hope tried to steal a march on the Sri Lankans. None of the laws of the game were broken, but there is sometimes a price to pay if your tactics don’t succeed. After all if as a result of backing up too far a batsman completes a run the bowling side can have no redress. Putting it another way if Buttler had been at the striker’s end and given Senanayake the charge, missed and been stumped, Cook would not have sought to complain. It would have been absurd to blame the bowler for tempting his man out of his crease with his deceptive flight, even if Buttler had genuinely believed he had his back foot anchored only to be lured forwards.

Cook bleating about his man being mankaded is, in many ways, a distinction without a difference. It is down to a batsman where he puts his feet, and he has no one to blame but himself if that gives the opposition the chance to take his wicket. The Spirit of Cricket is an expression that has been bandied about a good deal in recent days – some will say that the conduct of Rafique, Walsh and Inverarity are shining examples of it, and that Kapil Dev, Hurst and Griffith have disregarded it. But that misses the point. The Spirit of Cricket is not something that is capable of precise definition, but we all know that cricketers the world over adhere to it day in day out, as Senanayake did on Tuesday by taking the trouble to warn Buttler when he was under no obligation to do so – at the end of the day The Spirit of Cricket is the concept that separates cricketers from mere professional sportsmen.

The Mankad: damned if you do, damned if you don't | The Royal Gazette:Bermuda Editorials BCB annual meeting It can be argued that the greatest player in the history of cricket is chiefly responsible for the legal existence of an act that most infuriates players and fans, and which contravenes the spirit of the game. As a batsman, the most sought-after milestone is the century. Sir Donald Bradman, being the legend that he was, averaged 100 throughout his first-class career until a final-innings duck dropped him a smidgin under that number. So when �The Don� opened his mouth, people tended to listen. The date was November 13, 1947, the occasion being the penultimate warm-up game between the touring Indians and an Australian XI at Sydney Cricket Ground before a five-match Test series. On the final day of four, in the Australian XI second innings, opening bat Bill Brown was run out by first-change bowler Mulvantrai Himmatlal Mankad, latterly known as Vinoo Mankad.

The difference from the norm for a typical dismissal on this occasion was that the ball had not been bowled, with Mankad spotting Brown, the non-striker or batsman at the bowler�s end, out of his crease. Having previously given the batsman a warning, Mankad ran in as if to bowl and simply broke the wicket. The Australian umpire George Borwick was the man who ruled on that historic instance of a batsman being run out for �backing up� too far. Had Mankad known that he would finish with figures of eight for 84, the game might have never known such an unfulfilling mode of dismissal. One month later, in the second Test match, also at the SCG, with several thousand more in attendance than the 3,855 who witnessed a controversial first, the same combination of events was repeated � W R Brown run out (Mankad) 18. It led to widespread uproar but Bradman, the Australia captain, defended the Indian on the day and later repeated that stance in his autobiography.

�For the life of me, I can�t understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship,� wrote Bradman, who scored his 100th first-class century in that match. �The Laws of Cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker 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 non-striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage.� And with that most significant seal of approval, Mankading, as it has come to be known, became an accepted although little-used part of cricket. Being a �gentleman�s sport�, Laws of Cricket and Spirit of Cricket tend to fit hand in glove. The first envelopes the second but it is the second that gives cricket its allure, setting it apart from most sports for the level of sportsmanship applied, with the possible exception of rugby union. Which is why the act of Mankading is generally frowned upon and why it has been repeated in international cricket on only eight occasions since it was first seen by a wide audience 69 years ago.

That most recent occasion was on Tuesday at the Under-19 World Cup in Bangladesh, where a decisive group-stage match between West Indies and Zimbabwe ended on a Mankad. The young Zimbabweans were distraught at losing in such a fashion, by two runs, especially because their batsman had not been warned; nor had he been attempting to gain an unfair advantage. Replays appear inconclusive, which would normally give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, but he was sent on his way by the television umpire and West Indies advanced to a quarter-final date with Pakistan in a most unedifying fashion. For all that Mankading is frowned upon � the number of international dismissals might have been higher had sporting captains and teams not withdrawn their appeals � there is overwhelming support for preventing batsmen from stealing runs. The early returns yesterday from an ESPNCricinfo poll showed that, of 46,225 respondents, 87 per cent supported its retention, although significantly more than half that number preferred if at least one warning was issued first. As with most unsavoury global trends, Mankading has reared its ugly head in Bermuda and remains to this day, especially at the business end of closely fought matches.

However, few among our unscrupulous types of the past or present are of a mind to adopt the stance taken by Courtney Walsh, who refused to run out Saleem Jaffer in the last over of a World Cup match in 1987 that Pakistan won off the final ball. It was a result that ensured that West Indies, then a dominant force globally, would fail to reach the semi-finals for the first time in the history of the event. Walsh was roundly praised for withdrawing his appeal, winning millions of hearts on the sub-continent and worldwide, with one fan going so far as to present him with a hand-woven carpet. It is at odds with Walsh, now long retired, that those who have followed in his footsteps under the West Indies flag would resort to winning a match in that fashion. Ian Bishop, a commentator at the match on Tuesday and a former international team-mate of Walsh�s, said that he would not have attempted what Keemo Paul, a 17-year-old from Guyana, did. However, despite all the controversy it has caused leading into this week�s ICC annual meetings, he could not justify a witch-hunt, either.

Therein lies the dilemma: damned if you do, damned if you don�t. The conclusion is that Mankading is within the Laws but against the spirit if a batsman has not been previously warned � and it is definitely not what we want to be teaching our young players. The first Mankad in Australia: A tale from the goldrush | The Roar The first Mankad in Australia: A tale from the goldrush The mankad incident where Keemo Paul ran out Richard Ngarava. Related coverage Some 95 years before Vinoo Mankad met Bill Brown is the first recorded instance I can find of a Mankad-style run out in Australia. In 1853, men were frantically trying to make their futures on Australian goldfields. The gold diggers’ backgrounds varied wildly, and some had been educated at either of the two great universities of England – Oxford and Cambridge. One night on the Victorian digs, a fierce argument developed between Oxford and Cambridge graduates over who was the better cricket side. Consequently, a match was organised between the Dark Blues (Oxford) and the Light Blues (Cambridge).

The details of this match, played between two sides of six players, can be found in an updated edition of The History of Australian Cricket, by Chris Harte and Bernard Whimpress, from pages 12 to 14. This is due to one of the players for the Dark Blues, giving himself the name of ‘An Old Fogey’, recording an account of the match. After the Dark Blues set a total of 43, the Light Blues’ first three wickets all fell for 20. This is what happened next, according to ‘An Old Fogey’: An old Cantab was next and by as correct play as could be shown on our peculiar wicket, he increased the score to 35. Here a crisis occurred. One of the batsmen, not the Cantab, you may be sure, was very eager in backing up, and once when at my end he overshot the mark before the ball was delivered, and I, turning suddenly, knocked the stumps flying, while the batsman was fully a foot out of his ground. The umpire of course gave him out, and the batsman made tracks for the tent.

The crowd, however, shouted out ‘swindle’, and several stopped the batsman and told him to go back. The hum of voices soon swelled into a deafening roar. Oh! what a row, what a rumpus, what a rioting it was to be sure. After a lengthy explanation, it was admitted by all that player was out. Then the wild excitement died gradually away; the game was resumed, and harmony and pleasantness reigned once more. Much should be noted from this incident. For example, the author believed it was obvious that an experienced cricketer would never be allow himself to be run out for backing up too far. There was an emotive cry from the crowd, which was quelled when everyone understood that the batsman had been fairly dismissed. Some say Mankadding is not cricket, but they are wrong. It was within the spirit and the laws of the game in 1853, it was in 1953, and I see no reason why it won’t be in 2053.

‘An Old Fogey’ was as right to do what he did in 1853 as Keemo Paul was yesterday, to progress the West Indies to the quarter finals of the Under-19 World Cup. Want to work for The Roar? We're on the hunt for talented and enthusiastic Roarers to join our video team. If you think you have what it takes to produce videos for The Roar, get in touch . Oldest | Newest | Most Recent The Crowd Says (10) | Page of Comments February 3rd 2016 @ 11:04am So what is the Mankad Run Out? - Cricwaves Mobile Back So what is the Mankad Run Out? The Mankad Run Out is a very rare dismissal in Cricket. Its not something that gets mentioned in each and every match. But yesterday’s incident at the Gabba when India bowler R Ashwin appealed for a Mankad Run Out against Sri Lankan Lahiru Thirimanne, the rare dismissal once again got into the limelight. So what is the Mankad Run Out?

Well its the Run Out of the non-striker by the bowler without releasing the ball when he finds that the former is backing out of his crease way too early! Its a bizarre situation where the ball doesn’t get recorded but the wicket is deemed to have fallen that of the non-striker who was caught backing out of the crease even before the bowler had released the ball to the striker. Generally, its for the bowlers to first warn the non-striker that he has to stay in the crease according to the law of the game in presence of the Umpire. And even then, if the non-striker continues to do so, the bowler is entitled to run him out during his delivery stride. The ICC Law regarding this doesn’t state of any prior warning to be given but its expected to be given by the bowler for keeping up the spirit of the game. It is fair for the non-striker to leave his crease when the ball is released by the bowler to the striker so that he can cover some distance already which is crucial in stealing the quick runs.

However, if the non-striker does that even before the ball is released, it comes under unfair play and he could be run out by the bowler! The Mankad Run Out is also called as ‘Mankaded’. The name comes from one of India’s greatest cricketers - Vinoo Mankad. The late Vinoo Mankad was the first player in international cricket to actually run out a non-striker backing up at his crease even before the ball was released. That famous incident took place on December 13, 1947 when Vinoo Mankad in his delivery stride ran out Australian Bill Brown who was backing out of his crease at the non-striker in a Test Match at the Sydney Cricket Ground. Vinoo Mankad was criticized severely for breaching the sportsman’s spirit. But his style of dismissing Bill Brown had come after a similar dismissal to the same batsman in a tour match for the Indians against an Australian XI and also giving the batsman a prior warning in the Test Match. It can be debated that some players unknowingly have the habit of leaving their crease too early and in that moment can be caught off-guard!

Ever since that incident in Sydney wayback in 1947, any run out happening in this fashion was named as Mankad Run Out or simply Mankaded! The last time a batsman got out in this fashion was in 1992/93 when the great India all-rounder Mankaded South Africa’s premier batsman Peter Kirsten in a One Day International at Port Elizabeth. A heated argument took place between a furious Peter Kirsten and Kapil Dev but it did not stop the Umpires from upholding the Mankad Run Out. There were three instances in international cricket that have been recorded with the bowler finding the non-striker off-guard backing-up but then refusing to claim the wicket. West Indies fast bowler Courtney Walsh refused to claim the run out of Pakistan’s Saleem Jaffar in the 1987 Reliance World Cup match. It was a decision that backfired on the West Indies as it cost them a place in the Semi-Finals of the World Cup but something that gave Walsh a special place in upholding the spirit of the game.

In another instance, in 2003, Bangladesh’s left-arm spinner Mohammad Rafique too sacrificed a Mankad style of running out Pakistan’s Umar Gul in a Test Match at Multan. Had Rafique done that, Bangladesh would have pulled off an upset win over hosts Pakistan but it was instead Inzamam-ul-Haq taking his side to a 1-wicket win. The third instance of a possible Mankad Run Out was of course seen yesterday at the Gabba but the Indian team didn’t want to take the criticism of going against the spirit of the game and decided to take Lahiru Thirimanne’s mistake lightly.

Here are the instances of the Mankad Run Out recorded in International Cricket till date : History of Mankading in Test Matches * Bill Brown Mankaded by Vinoo Mankad, Australia Vs India, Sydney, 1947-48 * Ian Redpath Mankaded by by Charlie Griffith, Australia Vs West Indies, Adelaide, 1968-69 * Derek Randall Mankaded by Ewen Chatfield, New Zealand Vs England, Christchurch, 1977-78 * Sikander Bakht Mankaded by Alan Hurst, Australia Vs Pakistan, Perth, 1978-79 History of Mankading in One Day Internationals * Brian Luckhurst Mankaded by Greg Chappell, England Vs Australia, Melbourne, 1974-75 * Grant Flower Mankaded by Dipak Patel, Zimbabwe Vs New Zealand, Harare, 1992-93 * Peter Kirsten Mankaded by Kapil Dev, South Africa Vs India, Port Elizabeth, 1992-93 Here is what exactly ICC Law 42.15 relating to Fair and Unfair play states Bowler attempting to run out non-st

riker before delivery "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 possible.' - Compiled by BV Swagath

Question: In cricket, if a batsman had been victim to a Mankad, as what would his dismissal be recorded?
Answer: Run out