A commonly held view against the dismissal at the non-striker’s end, referred to as the “Mankad”, is that “it requires no skill”. On Monday (April 10), Royal Challengers Bangalore bowler Harshal Patel proved this to be wrong when he fumbled his Mankad attempt against Lucknow Super Giants tail-ender Ravi Bishnoi, costing his team the game.
Chasing a steep target of 212, LSG fought back remarkably to tie the game with a ball remaining. However, the team had lost nine wickets in the process. With scores level, just one wicket remaining, and the number 11 batter Avesh Khan on strike, non-striker Ravi Bishnoi decided to steal a few yards, exiting the crease while Harshal was still in his runup. Sensing an opportunity, Harshal attempted to run Bishnoi out but ended up missing the stumps. Bishnoi survived and in the following delivery, was able to run a quick bye, securing an amazing victory for Lucknow.
Harshal’s missed Mankad attempt has brought back the spotlight on cricket’s most controversial mode of dismissal. While many mocked Harshal for his miss, the Mankad debate unveils larger cultural faultlines in cricket.
What the law says
In March last year, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), custodian of the Laws of Cricket, accepted Mankading as a normal mode of running out the non-striker, removing it from Law 41 (Unfair play) and clubbing it with Law 38 (Run out). MCC had upheld the bowler’s right to appeal in a situation like this in 2017, but the dismissal continues to generate controversy.
“Law 41.16 – running out the non-striker – has been moved from Law 41 (Unfair play) to Law 38 (Run out),” the MCC said. Simply put, this is now just another mode of run-out. However, it needs to be seen if the governing body of cricket still allows the use of the word “Mankading”, for it is considered to be disrespectful to a legend of the game by many.
Calling the dismissal the “Mankad”
The first recorded instance of such a dismissal is from 1835, during a county game at the Lords in London. However, it was Vinoo Mankad’s dismissal of Australian Bill Brown in 1947-48, the first time it happened during a test match, which provided the monicker ‘Mankad’. During India’s tour of Australia, Mankad dismissed Brown twice by taking off the bails at the non-striker’s end before releasing the ball.
Over time, many have opposed the use of the term “Mankad” for the dismissal, arguing that it besmirches the name of one of India’s most legendary cricketers. For instance, Sunil Gavaskar, in the past, has referred to it as “Browned” (after the Australian batter Mankad dismissed), claiming that it was Brown rather than Mankad who was at the wrong.
On the other hand, there are those who find nothing wrong with the mode of dismissal, but still want to continue using the term. “He’s not going to get talked about much as one of the greater players of India … The one reason he keeps getting brought up and we keep talking about his career is because of the run out,” Jarrod Kimber, cricket journalist, said in The Red Inker Podcast.
This sentiment is shared by Vinoo Mankad’s grandson, Harsh Mankad, who told The Sydney Morning Herald that “Personally, I’m always delighted to see my grandfather being remembered. I feel it to be a great honour for our name to be associated with a cricketing term.”
The ‘Spirit of Cricket’ and cricket’s cultural faultlines
The Mankad debate, around the legitimacy of the dismissal (which is completely legal), had exposed prevailing faultlines in the world of cricket. Vocal and vehement opposition to the Mankad has emerged largely from the England. Critics cite the nebulous idea of “spirit of cricket”, which Mankading seemingly violates.
“It just infuriates me and I think it’s because I’ve been brought up in teams where we just wouldn’t even consider doing something like that,” English fast bowler James Anderson told the BBC. “Where is the skill in that? It is just a sneaky way of getting someone out, I do not like it,” Anderson added.
However, proponents of the Mankad, often from the subcontinent, have argued that it is not only a part of the laws of the game, it is in fact the non-striker who violates the “spirit of cricket” by trying to gain a few yards before the ball is even bowled. “Bishnoi was leaving his crease early. Any silly people out there still saying you shouldn’t run the non-striker out?” broadcaster Harsha Bhogle tweeted in the aftermath of last night’s incident.
For what is worth, Mankad’s dismissal of Bill Brow received support from Australia’s then captain, the late great Don Bradman himself. “For the life of me, I can’t understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship. 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,” he wrote in his autobiography.
However, today’s Mankad debate is not just about the the law itself. It is a reflection of a larger cultural divide in terms of how cricket is played and consumed, the rise of India as the sport’s predominant powerhouse, and traditionalists’ anxiety surrounding it.
Harshal Patel's missed Mankad attempt. (Screengrab) 
Share
