Talk:Run out

Mankad

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)

Your right, but I'm too sleeply to do this right now. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:29, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Run cut out

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)

Was the QM Derek O'Brien ? He is well-known for inventing terms on his own and for his "kitchen questions" (ie, cooked-up questions) :-) Tintin (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard it called this before, and cannot find any reference to it (other than this article). I'd request a reference for this (other than a quiz show) :) If it's a local term (eg in India), then the paragraph should probably be rewritten to say this. I think the current wording: "correct" is wrong. The "correct" term (ie the method of dismissal recorded in the scorebook) is "Run Out". Coatesg 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few references to 'Mankeded'

• Pushing the Laws to the limit [1]
• First batsman to be "Mankeded" no more [2]
• Kapll Dev mankaded Kirsten [3]
• Stay Grounded (CricInfo explaining the term) [4]

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)

Walsh non-mankad

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)

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC87/GROUP-B/WI_PAK_WC87_ODI9_16OCT1987.html is the match. Tintin (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You were right that the article was wrong. This was in the first match between the two times and hence did not directly decide the teams to qualify for the semifinals. But had West Indies won the match and the results of the other matches remained the same, they would eventually have qualified for the semifinal and Pakistan would have been eliminated on run-rate. Tintin (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Dannow 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked the wording from back in 2006, but I've amended the current wording to give less weighting to this incident in WI failing to progress. Spike 'em (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Who did Walsh Mankad??

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)

Article Needs a Different Picture

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)

Changes in 2016: No longer NPOV!

> "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)

"Former convention"? What convention? No convention has ever existed in any form of cricket, either amateur or professional, other than the convention to allow leeway to young or inexperienced players.

Of course mankads exist in amateur cricket. They are part of the laws of cricket and always have been since the laws were first annotated. I think the paragraph you have removed is significantly more accurate and NPOV than the text you have replaced it with Py0alb (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The text describes the two conventions and the first of these two is the former simply within the line of text. The wording can still be better.

Why do you think Mankads exist in amateur cricket in the same way as they do in the Pro game? Under the unmodified Laws as used in amateur cricket, the article already made clear that the bowler needs to take the bails off *before* he enters his delivery stride, which is different from the professional regulation. There is a clear difference of substance between the two by intent, as the primary sources cited detail. Are you disagreeing that this difference exists, the wording that expresses it, or its significance? I'm really not clear.

Why do you think that "No convention has ever existed in any form of cricket, either amateur or professional, other than the convention to allow leeway to young or inexperienced players?" Just check the crowd and player reaction and the British press after the Butler/Senanayake incident. My own experience for what it's worth is that there is and always has been a significant faction, in English cricket at least, that considers *any* attempt to run out the non-striker, even with prior warning, as poor sportsmanship, even in Saturday league cricket. I don't agree with it, but it exists, ingrained in aspects of British culture to the point of causing an instinctive gut reaction. Equally I regularly see bowlers in youth cricket trying to run out batsman after they have performed a fake delivery swing and I don't agree with that either, not least because it's not within the Laws they're playing to, but also because it's a deliberate deception.

Apart from losing the Law/regulation distinction, my main problem with the 2016 text from the NPOV is the use of wild words, and the insubstantiable claims of being a majority view. As I read it, the pre-2016 article already said everything, except that a) it didn't say folks who don't see it the hard-game way 'show ignorance and disrespect' and b) it didn't attempt to deny that another point of view exists. What substance is now missing?

Atconsul (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Too much mankadding

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)

True that too much of the article is about running out the non-striker (not Mankadding unless you want to go back into that controversy about definition of terms). But maybe it's the only interesting thing anyone has to say about run outs, and maybe it would be better to encourage more content here rather than less.

Also maybe - and that is maybe - the current round of rule changes has killed running out the non-striker off as an interesting topic for modern exponents. I personally hope so, although I am very sceptical about it. Atconsul (talk) 15:22, 28 December 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)

Agree. A classic case of WP:RECENTISM. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's worth splitting off and turning into a more substantive list. GiantSnowman 12:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

List created, fill your boots, expand the lead, argue about spelling of mankadding in title (capitalise / number of d's) etc. Spike 'em (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Run out with runners

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)

Lead improvements

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)

Thanks. I cannot fault the maths or the logic of the rebuttal but it misses the nuance of the use of the word wicket as it is used sometimes as an auto-antonym in cricket, the game of which I speak as if it were instinct. As this is a heading there is no place for explaining all of that there, and the offering was no less correct or clear to earth dwellers than Newton was about motion, albeit still open to further improvement.

However my motivation here was to avoid what was previously offered, and I am entirely satisfied that all of this can be better dealt with in the body of the article by a more fleshed-out explanation which is still written in the instinctive language of cricket, supplemented as required, and if we are all happy to leave the heading be at this I will feel we have now cleared away some of the gangue and can move on. MTIA. Atconsul (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I've heard "running between the wickets" before, but I don't think the word wicket, which is already overladen with meanings, can properly be used to mean a batsman's ground. Commentators might use it like that, but given that the previous offering wasn't much more complex, it seemed like the decrease in accuracy wasn't worth it. I'm fine with the lead as it is now. GreekApple123 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

OK happy with the outcome. The use of the word wicket in this context would be entirely proper, though, if not accessible to newcomers. What I didn't bother to argue above is that a) the calculus of line decisions (run out and stumped) in cricket is one dimensional (plus time), and b) the origins of the game place the batsman's ground at the centre of the (two) stumps, which is also the place the run out needed to be effected. All the action was focused at one point in space, the wicket. Evolution was essential to prevent broken fingers and more, but the terminology springs from there, and partly explains why the word wicket is so overloaded: the physical points have both been spaced perpendicular to the measurement, and the popping crease created in front, but the ideas remain. To be much good the article will also need to find a due place for this historical perspective, if for no other reason than that today's terminology isn't fully comprehensible without it. Atconsul (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hansie Cronje effecting a run out not attempting a run

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)

Run out when the batsmen considers the ball dead: hard cases

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. A lesser known but identical instance led to the dismissal of Pakistan batsman Ramiz Raja during a one-day international against England in 1987."

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

Bairstow not Run out when the batter considered the ball dead

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 think we should remove Bairstow on the basis that he wasn't actually run out. StAnselm (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Atconsul I'll respond in parts to the general comment:

1 - I simplified it by removing the aspects detailing in minutiae about who was the batsman when from context it's obvious.

2 - I kept it to a "run out" because that's what the reliable sources accessible at the time were referring to it as. In this talk page your justification for your edit to formally designate it as a stumping would arguably fall foul of No Original Research as the only cited sources at the time were of being a run out while you didn't provide a source that demonstrated Wisden or another source of authority had designated it a stumping.

3 - On mentioning the "controversy", you don't need to get arsey about it. Fact is the prior section on the 1882 match has colour already that goes beyond just referencing the bare facts of the story (e.g. Grace contrived), and that by referencing the resulting controversy (words of the reliable sources, not my opinion) on the dismissal it was probably best to "close the loop" as it were and therefore mentioned the aftermath of the MCC statement.

4 - On a personal note, if you want my opinion as an England fan, I don't get what the fuss is about. The ball was in constant motion the whole time and it was entirely Bairstow's fault for being an idiot and repeatedly just walking out of his crease as though he had the right to. If you don't want to get dismissed in an amateur fashion don't play like an amateur. Apache287 (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. I used a little irony (which I may yet come to regret and recant...) but I don't intend to make this personal, although I stand by my point that this page shouldn't be that interesting.

1. Your simplification went a lot further, including removing the report of the Muralitharan incident as well as uncorrecting the call of stumped.

2. The reference you cited had 'stumped' in the heading.

3. it's the recency of the incident and that fact that it relates to the living that makes this more sensitive. Not sure what loop you want to close, but my point is that this page is about run outs, not controversies in cricket. I was hoping by now someone else would have rescued this page from any doubts about 1882 and all that, as it is clearly a monumental event that is very well reported, and I doubt if anyone is going to have a contrary view on WG's actions that day. Ideally Wikipedia's offering on the report of the match can be referenced here: I don't think it's the job of this page to add anything on it.

4. Thanks. In another context it would be good to reflect the different views that England fans have on this incident, and I realise you're just chatting here as I have done to some extent. Atconsul (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

1. I removed the Muralitharan incident because it was a one line example that I had provided a more detailed example at that point to replace and the new example I felt better thematically fit into the paragraph. Given then there'd be two detailed examples I didn't think there were anymore needed.
2. I think that might be down then as when I first read it that it was "run out" but had changed when I'd cited it then. I've just checked the BBC one and despite still being cited on here as "run out" the title on the webpage has updated so I'll update it.
3. I meant as in the loop for the incident. If it's decided it'd be more warranted elsewhere and removed from here as not relevant anymore than I don't have a problem. I just didn't want to leave it sort of unfinished as an example.

Apache287 (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

He/She

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)