'Mankad is a cad's way of taking a wicket'

Deepti Sharma's Mankading of Charlie Dean in Saturday's third ODI at Lord's, the first in an international match in England since Sachithra Senanayake's dismissal of Jos Buttler at Edgbaston in 2014, has again divided opinion – not on its legality, as the Laws of Cricket have explicitly allowed it since March, but on its probity.

Sharma now says that India had warned Dean to stop backing up early and seeking to take an advantage but critics of her actions still think that it cannot be justified.

Read on to find out what readers from our comments section had to say about Sharma's actions – we have grouped the replies into three main categories.

'The spirit of the game still matters to some of us'

@Troy Tempest:

What a miserable way to wreck the exciting end of a match and to win it and a series. If it is not pure cheating, it is clearly poor sportsmanship and against the spirit of the game.

Deepti’s deceitful action was clearly deliberate and would have conned any batsman. Those who think otherwise have clearly not played the game of cricket where one was taught to give a warning first.

@Derek Brown: 

If the bowler has no intent to deliver the ball, but just wants to trap the batter, then there is no delivery stride and the wicket should not stand.

If this is how cricketers want to win, then our game has gone. The spirit of the game still matters to some of us.

@David Coleman:

Not even remotely sporting. A wise word from the umpire might have helped.

Cricket needs to look at this ridiculous scenario and come up with a solution which is less draconian. For the Indians, this has taken the shine off their achievements.

@Suresh Thalange:

I know the rules permit it, but can the rules be amended so that until the bowler releases the ball, it is not in play?

Shouldn’t the game be about skill and tenacity? Only when the bowler releases the ball is skill involved.

I see Mankading as a cad’s way of getting a wicket when the bowler knows they’re not skilful enough to get the batter out any other way.

@Alistair Roy:

On this occasion, the bowler clearly had no intention of bowling the ball. The bowler essentially dummied the batsman who had her bat in the crease while watching the bowler's arm move part of the way through the delivery and only then did she look down the wicket and lift her bat. Cricket will become a nightmare if this sort of action is condoned.

It is no different from when rugby changed the laws to stop the scrum-half dummying the pass at the base of a ruck to catch people offside. The law was never intended to be used in this way.

@Nicholas Brough:

The bowler either bowls the ball or stops in their run up and its dead ball. It's quite a simple principle. Pretending to bowl and then becoming a fielder isn't fair play. It's cheating pure and simple.

Any team [India] that wins through cheating doesn't deserve any respect at all.

@David Spillman:

It is sad that the bowler resorted to a ruse – pretending to bowl the delivery then stopping and hitting the stumps. This shows how unsportsmanlike it was, even if it is within the rules.

In life, there are plenty of things that are perfectly legal, but it doesn't mean they are all good or fair. This is a loophole that should be closed.

'If you are out of your crease, you're fair game'

@Constantine Lykiard:

Mankad is not a sad result of cricket's pursuit of victory at all costs. It is not the result of IPL and the short game's money. It is not cheating. It is the result of alert talent honed in streets full of traffic, played by kids without shoes, with balls made of rubber bands and splintered bats held with tape. It is the result of talent which is eager, alert and craves for recognition.

It is disrespectful to call Mankad cheating when the non striking batter attempts to gain advantage by leaving the crease early. It is disrespectful not to acknowledge the sharpness of mind of the bowler. Learn to lose gracefully and acknowledge that our team came up short and that's all there is to it.

@Bristol Ted:

If you don't want to be run out, stay in the crease. The rules are clear and the customary warning is optional courtesy, not a requirement.

Leaving the crease early is the clear rule-breaking here, not being run out as a result.

@Paul Arden:

She was out, it is that simple. The rules have been there for ages, and the player being asleep at speed is no reason to change one specific rule which has been around long before she was born.

@Thomas Gordon:

I can never fully understand the concept of doing something within the laws of the game, but it is considered unsporting?

I remember playing at school and having it drummed into us – you don’t leave your crease until the bowler has released the ball. In this instance, the batswoman was trying to gain an unfair advantage and was dismissed because of her own mistake.

@Gary Baldy:

This talk about Mankading being against the spirit of the game is rubbish.  Walking down the wicket and gaining an unfair advantage for a quick single is unsporting behaviour.

@John Keily:

If you are out of your crease, you're fair game to be stumped or run out. Every schoolboy cricketer since the year dot has been taught to keep his bat grounded behind the crease and never back up until you are positive the bowler is well into his delivery stride.

There is no need to be given a warning. The bowler is perfectly entitled to take advantage of the non-striking batsman's loss of concentration.

@Gary Baldy:

No top-class cricketer needs to be politely reminded by an opponent to follow the rules of the game. If they break the rules, as any non-facing batter leaving the crease early does, then they fully deserve to be out.

'Within the laws ... but it looks terrible'

@John Stevens:

It has always been the practice that if a batsman continues to be outside their crease when the bowler is about to deliver the ball, the bowler warns the batsman that he or she will be run out if they continue.

The rules of cricket allow for such a dismissal, however, in my day cricket was also about sportsmanship. Sadly that aspect of the game has declined.

@John Stubbington:

Absolutely within the rules – yes. Absolutely outside the spirit of the game – yes. The bowler should have warned the batter and advised the umpire. The captain could have withdrawn the appeal. It is a shame when gamesmanship wins the day.

@Richard Vine:

The Mankad dismissal is fine but once a bowler's front foot touches the ground in the delivery stride the laws should state that they must bowl the ball. It's a simple enough rule change. You can't pretend to bowl the ball and then hang on to it and turn back and run the batsman out, which is what happens in most Mankad dismissals.

@Stephen Clues:

Let's summarise. The Indian player was within the laws of cricket, so no personal blame should be attached. However, taking a wicket this way looks terrible and the sooner the laws of cricket are changed to prevent any repeat, the better.

@Brock O'Leigh:

The rules need to be changed such that it is acceptable to run someone out if they have left the crease before the delivery stride takes place. However, if the bowler doesn't go through with bowling the ball having taken the final delivery stride it is a no-ball.

@Paul Williams:

My only issue with this is that the law is being misquoted. There is no requirement for the non striker to be in their crease until the ball has been delivered.

What the rule actually says is that if the non-striker is out of their crease between the time the ball becomes live to the point where "the ball is normally delivered" then they can be run out.

It doesn't stay "until the ball is delivered".

So a bowler deliberately "miming" a bowling action but not releasing the ball, so as to trick the non-striker from leaving their crease, isn't allowed and should be called a dead ball.

The question in this case is where Sharma was in her delivery action at the point she then went for the run out.