Sunil Gavaskar is not happy for the name Mankad being used. While he may have valid reasons for wanting to change that, it seems unfair for bowlers not to be given the opportunity to use the rule and instead have the umpire shoulder another responsibility.
The former Indian captain has taken offence to the dismissal at the non-striker’s end by the bowler of the batsman trying to steal a run being labelled Mankading after the late Vinoo Mankad who effected the dismissal against Australia’s Bill Brown in 1947-’48.
It does seem bizarre that this is the only dismissal that is not addressed neutrally without alluding to the name. However, it does not mean that the dismissal is taken out of the hands of the bowler whose prerogative it is by the rules of the game to punish the batsman.
Why not add runs as penalties to the team while dismissing the batsman?
Some former cricketers, Gavaskar included as also Ricky Ponting, are of the opinion that instead of the batsman being dismissed, the team should be penalizing for the batsman cheating. However, it is a legitimate form of dismissals like a run-out or a stumping, giving credence in the laws of the game. Why should this rule be devalued? Why not add penalty runs in addition so the batsman and team are both on their toes but behind the crease at all times?
The idea that the third umpire should be saddled with this form of dismissal seems illogical. The astute bowler holds within himself the power to dismiss the batsman, ratified by the fact that the batsman is found out of his crease at the non-striker’s end. It is a fairly simple model of dismissal, often not requiring the use of the third umpire or television replay. The guilty batsman knows.
Besides, why should the umpire be thrust with the responsibility for what is essentially a play between bat and ball? Why reduce the bowler to a spectator when he can be a threat to both batsmen at each end?
Doing that seems like a greater disservice than the dismissal being attributed to Mankad, which some have attached a negative connotation when in reality the bowler should be praised for his presence of mind.
Taking power out of the bowler’s hand is not the way to honour Mankad. It should be a matter of pride that the bowler has respect for the rule and also, has shown alertness. Why should the bowler have reduced powers because some are uncomfortable with how the name is being used?
Besides, why has this mode of dismissal become so controversial that it requires the third umpire to act as the twelfth man on the field?
Stumpings and run-outs are sometimes referred to the third umpire. So should Mankading. Whether the team needs to be penalized is something to reflect upon particularly since there are repeat offenders like Jos Butler who, as talented as they are, have no qualms cheating and playing with the spirit of the game but cry foul when the bowler has exercised his legitimate right.
How is taking the power out of the bowler’s hand strengthening the team or the bowler? How is Vinoo Mankad being honoured?