Explaining the Mankading Law

This post explains what the law is by considering how it is typically disputed by cricket fans.

Mankading has been in the news. The arguments people often make when they dispute a decision or the meaning of a law are always interesting. This post is about how the mankad law is typically disputed disputed by cricket fans.

The Law, as it applied in final India v England ODI which ended with a dismissal of this type states the following (emphasis added).

41.16.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.

There are two clauses in the law which specify the period of play during which this type of dismissal is possible. The first “from the moment the ball comes into play” is not usually disputed by most fans. Law 20.5 specifies that “The ball ceases to be dead – that is, it comes into play – when the bowler starts his/her run-up or, if there is no run-up, starts his/her bowling action.”.

The second “the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball” is a different matter. It includes the words “normally” and “expected”. To a cricket fan aggrieved by a decision, these words are like catnip. Who can say what’s normal? Who can say when something is “normally expected”? It’s all a matter of “subjective” judgment.

That’s a killer word. “Subjective”. It means that nothing true can be said about this. It’s all a matter of opinion, and all opinions are equally correct. My guy (the non-striker in the case of the current law) got skinned because he found himself at the wrong end on one man’s (the umpire’s) opinion. Another umpire could have equally reasonably made the opposite decision. This is not the rule of Law, but of men. And so on. You have heard these arguments.

Except that this is not how cricket (or any sport) works. In over-arm cricket, the point when the bowler is normally expected to release the ball is the highest point of the delivery arc.

This point of the action, when the leading arm is still high and the cartwheel part of the normal over-arm action is just beginning is not. Or, more accurately, not yet.

This raises the other common point of dispute. What if the bowler delays her “normal” action, like Deepti Sharma did. In the standard description of the over-arm bowling action, the ball release is second last point in the action from left to right.

Timing is not a relevant part of the legality of the bowling action. The bowler can change her run up. It can be 5 paces on the first ball and 20 paces on the second ball. The bowler does not have to inform the umpire about this change. The bowler can release the ball from behind the stumps on one delivery and from the more common position on the crease (in which the front leg lands on the batting crease) on the next. The bowler does not have to inform the umpire about this either. The bowler can delay the delivery stride as Ravichandran Ashwin often does (to see whether the batter is making some predetermined movement). This is also legal.

So it is not illegal for the bowler to delay her action. The phrase “normally have been expected” cannot refer to the time between them. Indeed, a bowler who thinks the non-striker is taking liberties and is consequently giving attention to the non-striker’s movements is very likely to delay her action. This does not affect when the non-striker or anybody else can normally expect the bowler to release the ball. This point is still when the bowling arm is at the highest point in its arc (or, in the case of Jasprit Bumrah, just past the highest point in its arc.)

Yet another common dispute made by a few people is that since the law requires to evaluate an event which hasn’t occurred, it is a matter of opinion. Many also argue that this law is like the LBW law. This is incorrect. The LBW law requires the umpire to evaluate a counterfactual - “if the ball had not hit the batter, would it have gone on to hit the stumps?”. Law 41.16 on the other hand, does not require the evaluation of such a counterfactual. What is asks instead is “Has the delivery action advanced to the point when the non-striker could reasonably expect the bowler to have released the ball?”

In the case of Deepti Sharma, and in fact, in the case of every single run out of the non-striker before the ball is delivered, the answer to this is easily and unambiguously “No”, because the bowler is typically looking for this mode of dismissal in these cases and so the action does not advance deep into the delivery stride, just long enough to give the non-striker the impression that the bowler is going to deliver the ball. So the legality of the dismissal is simple to evaluate.

The mankad dismissal is deliberately pursued. It is neither accidental, nor spontaneous. The bowler plans it because the bowler thinks the non-striker’s actions make it a possibility. If it were not clear what the non-striker could do to avoid being mankaded, then the law could be said to be ambiguous. But that is not the case. To avoid being mankaded, non-strikers should stay in the crease until the bowler releases the ball. The MCC’s statement said as much:

“MCC's message to non-strikers continues to be to remain in their ground until they have seen the ball leave the bowler's hand.  Then dismissals, such as the one seen yesterday, cannot happen.”

The law is not ambiguous. It was not ambiguous in the case of Charlie Dean at Lord’s. Had Dean stayed in the crease until Sharma had released the ball, she would not have been run out. Indeed, with 17 required from 39 balls, and the non-striker (a number 11 to be sure), batting on 10 from 27, the tactical wisdom of backing up too early is doubtful even if one disregards the fact that backing up too early was Unfair Play under the laws which governed that match.

Whenever you hear someone claim that a Law is ambiguous in Cricket, you should be suspicious of such a claim.

The claim of subjectivity involves the following misunderstanding. An event of the field of play can be marginal. For example, an LBW appeal can be so close on the question of whether or not the ball would have gone on to hit or miss the stumps, that both “Out” and “Not Out” can be equally reasonable decisions (this idea forms the basis of “Umpire’s Call” in DRS). But this marginality is about the facts of a particular delivery, not about the meaning of the Law. The Law is not ambiguous or subjective.

Even on factual matters, since it is possible for marginal LBW appeals to be distinguished from clear ones, the umpire’s judgment is never “subjective” in the nullificationist sense than many disputants claim it is.

Whenever someone claims that the wording of a law is “subjective” you should be suspicious too. Whenever someone claims that a particular decision is “subjective”, if the claim is to be correct, then it must be shown that the facts indicate a marginal case. Otherwise, the person is using the word “subjective” in the same nullificationist sense, and is wrong.

The mankad law is, like every other law in cricket, unambiguous, enforceable and well defined. The decision to move it from Law 41 (Unfair Play) to Law 38 (Run Out) is a good one. As things stand, as a matter of law and fact, Charlie Dean was guilty of Unfair Play at Lord’s. After October 1, the non-striker who is mankaded will not be.