This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Run out was copied or moved into List of Mankading incidents in cricket with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
mmmm, it's fair to mention that a bowler can run out a non-striker who's backing up before entering his delivery stride - but that isn't Mankading, so it needs to move. Perhaps we rewrite the section so that its called something like 'Batsman stealing a run' with Mankading being a subsection of it. I'm not quite sure. jguk 20:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A run cut out is the official term for a bowler running a non-striker at the time of his delivery. I stand by this as I have watched a quiz show, the Bournvita Quiz Contest and a clip was shown with Courtney Walsh attempting to run-out the non-striker. This was telecast back in 1996. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:06, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Does not look to me that their is any dispute about the use of the term Mankeded as a nickname for this form of dismissal. The Laws of cricket have been changed so that it is more difficult to dismiss in this way.RonaldDuncan (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there an article somewhere that states that the Windies lost the game where Courtney Walsh didn't mankad Jaffer? A quick search only brings up copies of this article. The match described in the article appears to be this one which the West Indies actually won, though Pakistan still qualified ahead of the West Indies for the semi final of the WC. This appears to be the game in question, which means the article is wrong, I'm happy to be proven wrong though. Dannow 09:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
On this page it says that walsh refused to mankad saleem jaffar, while on the Vinoo mankad page it says that he refused to mankad abdul kadir...so which one is it Sidmohata (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As the caption shows, the batsman in the picture is being stumped, not run out. The two types of dismissal are similar, but not the same. 117.4.200.141 (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
> "Some observers feel that dismissing a batsman in this way is against the spirit of the game under the pretence that the non-striker may have "accidentally" left the crease, but most cricketers fully comprehend the content of the laws are both willing and able to play within them. Many have directly expressed the opinion that as the run out backing up is expressly permitted within the laws, it is both entirely legitimate and entirely sporting and to complain about such a dismissal is to show ignorance and disrespect for both the laws and the history of the sport itself.[1]"
Hey guys you have replaced a reasonably objective article with an opinionated one. How do you justify using words like "Some" "Most" "Many"? You are not offering any evidence to back this up and I'm confident you won't be able to. I say this even though I lean towards your view. Your citation merely shows that Bradman agreed with you in the context of hard pro cricket. You are also saying that those with the alternative view to the one expressed "show ignorance and disrespect." Such a tone and expression of opinion have no place in any attempt at writing a reference article in Wikipedia or anwhere else. Whatever faults you found in the previous page, it did in fact agree with your view without insult or sweeping unsubstantiable claim.
> "By convention in some levels of amateur cricket, a generous bowler may warn a naïve or inexperienced batsman to stay in his crease rather than to take his wicket, however no such stipulation or recommendation exists in either the laws of the game or the MCC guidance notes on the Spirit of Cricket. When it has happened in first-class cricket, it has on occasion provoked debate,[2] however such dismissals have become more and more common in international cricket in recent years and have become significantly less controversial as a result."
In you excitement to promote you point of view you have unfortunately overwritten a significant point. The Laws of Cricket differ from many regulations. The previous text was important because it explains to 11 year olds who have attempted to Mankad each other having watched the television that the Law does not get you out like this in amateur cricket.
If you want to keep these substantial changes you really should check the guidelines on NPOV and explain HERE what you are trying to do, usually before editing the main page. Thanks.
Atconsul (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
In the meantime I have restored some of the previous text and aimed to remove some of the non-neutral additions. Please do edit to make the article even better as long as the text continues to acknowledge a) that the Laws and regulations are different b) that different points of view exist. I think this is quite an interesting topic as it highlights that no-one really owns cricket. Clearly different conventions exist, and to some extent these might be cultural, with much of the British Press on one wing, and many modern players on the other. I don't know, but I expect W.G. was with Bradman on this. Anyone know? But none of these factions owns the right to say what is reasonable, do they? I dare say this is why the Spirit of Cricket avoided the detail of this subject as indeed it has on the question of walking after 'nicking off,' but I don't have any evidence to cite. It might be good to explore these cultural questions more explicitly in the article.
Atconsul (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Atconsul (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
75% of this article is on Mankadding which covers a tiny fraction of run outs. I am going to severely cut it down and suggest a separate article / list if people feel strongly about it. Spike 'em (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
With Ashwin & Buttler bringing this to the fore again, I will restate : I don't think we need to mention every single occurrence of Mankadding in this article. Create a list if you think it is notable AND can find some sources that show that a list is necessary. Spike 'em (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I find this section unintelligible.
Particular problems:
"a batsman who is batting with a runner should always be behind the crease at the striker's end". Taken literally that means that both batsmen and up to two runners should be behind the crease at the striker's end.
"a batsman who is batting" - so a batsman then?
"If he forgets that he has a runner a quick minded fielder is able to break the stumps at the striker's end to run him out". Clearly the writer doesn't mean this literally, but it is unclear. Also I don't think there is any requirement for the fielder to be quick minded.
I think it's: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.93.63 (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Quote: "Run out is a method of dismissal in cricket in which the batsman nearest to the wicket that has just been put down is out of their ground." The issue with this description can be illustrated as follows. Suppose both batsmen are near one end of the pitch, with Batter #1 directly in line with the wicket and 3 meters away from it, and Batter #2 a greater distance from that wicket, but only 2 meters away from the crease. The ground is closer to Batter #2, thus he is the one who is run out. GreekApple123 (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit of 28 Dec 2010 to invite a discussion of the benefit of including the fuller prior text, which refers to "Hansie Cronje, who is not remembered for excessive sportsmanship."
If anything this phrase demonstrates litotes rather than emotion or subjectivity: Hansie Cronje will not be remembered for his sportsmanship. This is I submit a rare point of consensus amongst the cricket community, whatever contrary remembrances about him there may also be. My reasoning for including the turn of phrase here is to make the very specific and important point that even Cronje wondered whether his action in this incident was sporting, and cricket agrees that it was. That is important because cases discussed on this page, including this one, report some of cricket's cultural conventions and different views that pertain, but this particular part of the conventions of run out not attempting a run is not controversial. I think that point is succinctly and nicely made by this case *because* Cronje was the runner-out, appealer, and appealing captain, and removing the context of his reputation rather neuters it, reducing it to yet another un-noteworthy anecdote. Take away the context and the case should also go. I could, though, describe Cronje more directly if that would be deemed preferable.
Clearly what is felt subjective in cricket is itself subjective. The edit did not object to a description of Thomson's pose as elegant, although this is a much more dubious claim, and later on we discuss WG and gamesmanship. Does the edit aim specifically to avoid using Cronje's reputation to make a point? Does it want to dispute what a reasonable NPOV on him should be? Atconsul (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
AaronAhoun contributed the following:
"In a related case, Law 38.2 states that if a no-ball has been called, the striker shall not be given run out unless he attempts to run. A notable instance occurred in a West Indies vs Australia Test in 1991, when Australia batsman Dean Jones was bowled off a no-ball, and, not hearing the umpire's call, left the crease assuming he had been dismissed. Carl Hooper ran in and uprooted the middle stump and the West Indies team appealed for a run out, which appeal was erroneously upheld by the umpire.[1] A lesser known but identical instance led to the dismissal of Pakistan batsman Ramiz Raja during a one-day international against England in 1987.[2]"
This reference to Law 38.2 is to the 1980 code, under which "If a no-ball has been called, the striker shall not be given out unless he attempts to run." Under the current Laws the batsman can be run out not attempting a run from a no-ball, and the ball is not dead even if the wicket is down, but the umpire will disallow the appeal under Law 31.7 "Batsman leaving the wicket under a misapprehension" if they judge that the batsman has left the crease wrongly believing themself to be out. The umpire will then call "dead ball". At the time Law 27.5 also protected the batsman against "Batsman leaving the wicket under a misapprehension" but did not mandate a dead ball.
I have removed these cases because they are far from straightforward illustrations of "Run out when the batsmen considers the ball dead," and explaining them against the modern code is complicated. Presumably at the time Jones and Raja left the wicket because they believed they were out, not because they believed the ball was dead, although the ball would indeed have been dead had they just been legally bowled as they thought. As it was, they were not out bowled and therefore the ball was not dead, but it was not possible for them to be run out because it was not then (1980s and 1990s) possible on a no-ball. Even if the umpires had not forgotten 38.2, they could have disallowed the dismissal under "leaving the wicket under a misapprehension" for being bowled, but still allowed a dismissal that was legal under a no-ball. These considerations are probably well-documented somewhere as these incidents will have had some influence on the Law change. Very interesting to some, including me, but too tangential to this context I feel. Atconsul (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Responding to edit by Apache287 "Simplifying description of initial incident, adding section on the controversy it generates with details of apology by MCC."
I don't think you can reasonably 'simplify' here by passing off a stumping as a run out just because it makes for an anecdote on the spirit of cricket that complements the 1882 case. This page serves many audiences including scorers and players as well as cultural observers.
I note that a lot of England fans and neutrals feel cheated out of a closer finish by what they see as a contrivance, but in the fullness of time I suggest this isn't how this incident will be seen in this article about run outs.
The fact that this was an act by a keeper standing back and throwing down the stumps matters to the context. It is not a mere detail. Because it was in the keeper's gloves directly from the ball bowled, the stumping would only be allowed by the umpires if the action was immediate as you report - a legitimate, familiar and instinctive action by a competitive player, not a contrivance. This question is covered by case 20.1.1.1 (automatic dead ball when the ball is finally settled in the hands of the wicket keeper) rather than 20.1.2 (ball adjudged dead by the umpire because both sides regard it as dead) and the reason Bairstow was out was because he was not alert to the risk of being stumped evem when the keeper is standing back. Wisden's editor opined accordingly at lunchtime on BBC's Test Match Special. The game footage shows the keeper threw the ball even before Bairstow had left his ground.
If you want to make a point about 'the controversy such a dismissal generates within the cricket community' perhaps you should create a 'Controversies in Cricket' page. I bet it'll be a lot more interesting than this one, and perhaps you could get Rees-Mogg to offer a few stanzas on a "Wykehamist Fallacy" riff. But this page is about run out.
In the meantime I have just corrected the record enough to be fair to the living person we are discussing. When the dust has settled I doubt if this incident will make the cut here with any wording, but we'll see what the cricket community thinks an online encyclopedia article about run out should offer. Atconsul (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I know the Laws use he/she now. But they are the Laws, and normative language requires this kind of repetitive ugliness. We don't have to do this even though we are an encyclopedia. So if we can't now use 'he' in its old-english neuter sense for entirely laudable modern reasons, I strongly suggest 'they' and 'their' is better than he/she, albeit that we are still doomed to have 'batters' and that both phrases sound clunky to traditional native cricket speakers. Is there any consensus pending on this? Atconsul (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)