Ever since Ravichandran Ashwin ran out Jos Buttler in his bowling run-up, “The Mankad” debate which has reached a whole new level. It was during the Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab match that Ashwin ran out Buttler in an unfortunate manner. Everyone has lashed out at Ravichandran Ashwin for his unsporting behaviour.
However, there is one person who is not so happy with the term Mankad and it is none other than Vinoo Mankad’s only surviving son Rahul Mankad. The dismissal was named after Vinoo Mankad as he was one of the early players to get a batsman out in that fashion. It was during India’s tour of Australia in 1947 when Vinoo Mankad ran out Bill Brown when the latter had left the crease before Mankad delivered the ball.
However, Bill Brown was warned quite a few times before Mankad actually ran him out. Meanwhile, Rahul Mankad feels that it is unfair to name this mode of dismissal as “Mankad”. Rahul Mankad further stated that he has spoken with many former greats like Sunil Gavaskar and Ian Chappell and they have no issue with this particular form of dismissal.
“I have spoken to many greats, including Sunil Gavaskar, the Chappells (Greg and Ian) and Michael Holding and they have no issue with this form of dismissal. But this doesn’t die as a controversy, it’s unfortunate that my father’s name is tainted because of this,” Rahul Mankad was quoted as saying by the Mumbai Mirror.
“The mode of dismissal is within the laws of cricket. It was not as if my father did it the first time, or it hasn’t been done subsequently. I think it was Australian journalists who had coined the phrase (way back in the 40s). The ICC has already ruled that the mode of dismissal should be called run out. I think it’s appropriate,” Rahul further added.
Many former cricketers and experts have lashed out at Ashwin as they felt that he is a senior player should have maintained the decorum of the game. Even BCCI criticised Ashwin for his gesture and revealed that it was unanimously decided in the presence of Vira Kohli and MS Dhoni that they would not Mankad any batsman even if it is World Cup final.
“The problem is that this mode of dismissal is now clouded with this spirit of the game stuff. The game has changed and there is little room anymore to take the moral high ground. Batsmen don’t walk when they nick the ball, fielders claim catches when the ball has clearly bounced in front of them, they even tamper with the ball… Where is the spirit of cricket then? And this is within the law, permissible, what more clarity do they want,” Rahul, who had played 47 Ranji games for Mumbai, said.
“The point is it calls into question the players’ integrity and the spirit of the game. It has nothing to do with it. If you take the emotion out of the dismissal, then it’s a simple run out.”
“My father regretted it, he obviously wished it would not have happened. But at the time, he felt that it was the only course of action left, because Brown refused to heed warnings. When I met Bill Brown just before he passed away in Australia, he said he was fine. He said to me what Vinoo did was well within the rules. No bitterness, they actually parted as friends. The entire Australian team stood by my father.”