U19 Cricket World Cup (January - February) 2016

if you don't want to be mankaded, make sure that you don't leave your crease until the bowler bowls; its really quite simple. Otherwise what's to stop me taking off every ball like a baseball player trying to steal a base?

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

If its true (and I'd need more evidence that one article) then its unfortunate but something that's surprisingly common; admittedly not amongst teams that play in the world cup but at lower levels it is. There was something a few months ago about the Suriname womens team not having that many women in it, compared to that this is childs play
 
Sounds like I am in a minority here and I totally agree with the decision. Stay in your tweaking crease until the ball is bowled. I have absolutely no sympathy with the batsman here. I am not sure if the warning was given or not but even if it wasn't, I would still give it out as the third umpire has rightly done so. It's in the laws of the game to do so and batsmen should know that. fearsome tweak the spirit of the game. Nobody brings this spirit bullshit when a batsmen doesn't walk after hitting the ball and getting out. Why should it be brought here? You have to stay back in the crease and not try to steal a single even before the ball is bowled. You can't have everything going batsmen way. Quite surprised to see so many international players opposing it? the funny thing is most of the people who are opposing the decision are batsmen and the ones who are supporting the decision are bowlers. Tells you the state of the game.

Reactions to Mankading at Under-19 World Cup: 'Can't believe what I have just seen! Embarrassing!' | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo[DOUBLEPOST=1454424958][/DOUBLEPOST]Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 9.52.38 AM.png


'The batsman should not be leaving the crease' | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
 
Last edited:
My main issue here is chances are the bowler ran up with no intention of releasing the ball and most probably if he had gone through with his normal run up and action the batsman would still be behind the line when he released it. Mankads such as Jos Buttlers (particularly given the warning) I can completely understand but this is just hugely unsporting in my view.
 
Last edited:
Srilanka win toss and Pakistan batting today.overcast morning.Hafez injured during practice session, he is rested today, crunch game today , Todays winner will plays vs W.I
While loser face England.

India will plays vs Namibia on February 6th Saturday.
 
Paku19 lucky so far srilankan keeper dropped a sitter but captain z.malik out as Pak are 29 for 1 off 6.
 
^Interesting to see some live commentary.
 
An easy win it should be for Sri Lanka now, unless Pakistan pick the next 2 wickets for a 10 runs or less. Just turned the TV to see some lovely cover drives from Mendis that indeed reminds Me of Sangakkara. He can be the next big thing for Sri Lanka.
 
was the batsman warned first, after that only mankading is allowed if the batsman doesnt heed it from then on isnt that how the rule works or am i wrong ?

If the batsman had been warned once before i dont see anything wrong with mankading!

There is no rule on warning I believe, it's a pathetic convention.

I have NO problem with mankading. It was fine when SL did it to Buttler & fine now. Don't wanna be run out, stay in your crease.

The batsman doesn't warn a bowler he's gonna switch hit, or charge the spinner...

When I saw @SpitfiresKent retweeting loads of cricketers condemning yesterday I thought there was an underarm incident or they'd got away with obstructing a runner or something... Mankading is absolutely fine, and this is a ridiculous "storm".
 
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.

The custom is nonsense. Sati/Suttee was a longstanding custom.
 
There is no rule on warning I believe, it's a pathetic convention.

I have NO problem with mankading. It was fine when SL did it to Buttler & fine now. Don't wanna be run out, stay in your crease.

The batsman doesn't warn a bowler he's gonna switch hit, or charge the spinner...

When I saw @SpitfiresKent retweeting loads of cricketers condemning yesterday I thought there was an underarm incident or they'd got away with obstructing a runner or something... Mankading is absolutely fine, and this is a ridiculous "storm".

Regular mankadding is fine in my opinion (such as Buttlers). The issue I have is the way in which the bowler went about this one personally.
 
The Zim batsman was barely sneaking an advantage here, there's actually a debate if his bat was fully over the line when the bails were whipped off. We're talking millimetres here, not yards.

I agree with @SamP I don't think the bowler ever had any intention of bowling that ball and it's a shame because everyone watching was robbed of a great finish to what was a very good game of cricket.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top