The Mankad family have called on SLAM to stop naming one of cricket’s most controversial acts after their relative as grandson says: ‘I want to see it stay and keep his memories alive’
- The term Mankad has been a part of cricket vocabulary since 1947
- The controversial method of dismissal was first popularized by Vinoo Mankad
- This has caused debate ever since, despite being perfectly fair under MCC laws
- Cricket executives have called for the term to be scrapped
- But the Mankad family insists they are perfectly happy to keep the legacy alive
- Click here for all your latest international sports news on Daily Mail Australia
Vinoo Mankad’s family has criticized calls for a name change over the controversial removal method, insisting they are proud to be associated with it.
The practice of running out the batter at the non-striker’s end has been part of cricket’s vocabulary since Mankad first deployed it on India’s tour of Australia in 1947.
Mankad ran out Australian batter Bill Brown by removing the bails at the non-striker’s end after Brown had come out of his crease well in a tour match against an Australian XI.
Harsh Mankad insists that he does not want the term Mankad to disappear from cricket
Mankad, a left-arm orthodox spin, then repeated the trick in the second Test in Sydney.
The dismissal has been a source of controversy ever since with its detractors deeming it unsportsmanlike, despite being perfectly legal under the Marylebone Cricket Club Laws of Cricket.
And Australian Cricketers Association CEO Todd Greenberg and Cricket New South Wales CEO Lee Germon have led calls to stop using the Mankad name to refer to the practice of running a batter back up.
‘I don’t think this is a debate. I guess I’m very black and white. It shouldn’t be the word Mankad,’ Greenberg told SEN on Friday.
Vinoo Mankad (right) first deployed the dismissal method during India’s Tour of Australia in 1947, running out Bill Brown in a tour match and then in the second Test in Sydney
‘I agree, the players have a role to play in getting rid of that term. It was a run out at the non-striker’s end. […] We have a tremendous opportunity and responsibility as elite players to make sure we change that.
‘Language is important. Tone is important. And an understanding that when you break the rules there are consequences.’
But Mankad’s family appears to be quite happy with their ancestor’s name being associated with it.
‘I’m always happy to see my grandfather remembered,’ Harsh Mankad, the grandson of Vinoo Mankad, India’s No1-ranked tennis player throughout the 2000s, told the Herald Sun.
Australian Crickters’ Association CEO Todd Greenberg (left) has called on players to drop the word Mankad from cricket out of respect for the Mankad family
‘I feel it is a great honor for our name to be associated with a cricket term.
‘I would like to see “Mankad” or “Mankading” live on and keep his memories and legacy alive as a great competitor and sportsman who is highly respected and admired by everyone I know and those who know him and have experienced life with him! ‘
On Tuesday, the debate over the legitimacy of the dismissal was reignited when Adam Zampa attempted to run out Tom Rogers in the Melbourne derby in the Big Bash.
A video review led to Rogers not being given out as Zampa’s bowling arm went past its highest point before the leg-spinner reached back to knock down the bails.
Adam Zampa (right) tries to stump Tom Rogers in the BBL on Tuesday at the MCG
The Melbourne Stars captain insisted he was ‘within his rights’ to run out Rogers
The Melbourne Stars captain insisted he was ‘within his rights’ to mankad Rogers, but was criticized by his own coach, David Hussey, who slammed the attempt as ‘not the right way to play cricket’.
In October last year, the International Cricket Council changed its Mankading rules so that it was no longer classified as ‘Unfair Play’ but a form of ‘Run Out’.
A controversial dismissal has always been considered a legal and fair method of dismissing a batter under the Marylebone Cricket Club Laws of Cricket.
On-field umpire Gerard Abood explained to Zampa TV umpire Shawn Craig that Rogers was not sent off after ruling that the Stars skipper had completed his action without releasing the ball.
Law 41.16.1 of the MCC code states: ‘If the non-striker is not on his ground at any time from the moment the ball is in play to the moment when the bowler would normally be expected to deliver the ball. , the non-striker is liable to run out.
‘In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he is out of his ground when his wicket is brought down by the bowler throwing the ball on the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, if given or not the ball.’
