In cricket there are several ways to get the batsmen out, some happen to be the obvious types whereas others are a rarity and require minimum or no effort on the part of bowlers. Everyone’s aware of conventional dismissals such as bowled, leg before, run out, stumped, caught etc so we are not going into these. Instead, let us focus on the mode of dismissals where bowlers play skeletal or zilch roles to send the batsmen back to the pavilions. It is time to understand these clearly with no scope of confusion whatsoever.
This happens rarely in cricket, especially in today’s times, and is a type of dismissal where the bowler is at best a passive audience. Over here a batter has to walk back if he or she inadvertently disturb the timber while playing a shot. Some might argue that the bowler should get some credit as he or she would have plotted the batter’s downfall by cramping the latter for room and nudging him or her to hit the wicket with the bat or his body accidentally. There might be some logic to this theory but in the larger perspective, the hit wicket comes across as carelessness on the part of batters.
Obstructing The Field
This is a very awkward way of getting oneself dismissed and a batter would be crossed with himself or herself to go back in this manner. The obstructing the field is also a rarity in cricket as there have been only seven instances in Tests and two in ODIs so far. It happens when a batter deliberately tries to obstruct the fielder through action or words. For example, after playing a shot if the batter is willfully deemed to prohibit or prevent or disturb a fielder from getting himself run out then the umpire can rule in the favour of the fielding side. Since 2017, even the handled the ball dismissal has been integrated into the ambit of obstructing the field.
This happens to be the rarest of rare dismissal as it’s tough to find an instance in international cricket. In this, a batter will be given out if he or she hits the ball twice while the ball is in play. For instance, after delivering the ball by the bowler if the batsman attempts to hit it twice while playing the shot then the umpire can raise his finger. The only recent example of such dismissal was of Kurt Wilkinson, in the 2002-03 Red Stripe Bowl, as he turned out for Barbados against the Rest of Leeward Islands.
This happens to be another unusual dismissal in cricket and the one that requires no effort, whatsoever, on the part of bowlers. In this case, a batter can be ruled out if he or she does not come to the field within three minutes after the exit of the previously dismissed batter. This is to ensure that the next batter turns up on time without wasting precious moments of play. In international cricket, recently, Trent Bolt was given out in this manner in a match involving Australia and New Zealand as the Kiwi bowler could not come to bat on time due to an injury. Also, Sachin Tendulkar had a close shave with the Timed Out dismissal in the 2006-07 South Africa series, but the then Proteas captain Graeme Smith chose not to appeal for the same.
This is another uncommon kind of dismissal that has drawn a wedge between the cricketer community as some find it absolutely fair whereas others consider it against the spirit of the game. In this type of dismissal, the batter can be given out if the bowler touches the bails with the ball before completing the delivery with the former short of the crease. Though this is considered against the rules of fair play bowlers usually effect such dismissals after giving a warning to the batter. Recently, in the IPL, when Ashwin dismissed Jos Buttler in a similar manner several people questioned the legality of the “Mankading”. Also, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) recently shifted running out non-striker from the domain of unfair play to the domain of run out and the new rule will come into force from October 1 this year.
Why is it called “Mankading”?
The Australian media is the one that named this form of dismissal as Mankading after an Indian bowler Vinoo Mankad dismissed Bill Brown on two occasions in such a manner in the India-Australia series of 1947. Several cricketers, including Sunil Gavaskar, consider “Mankading” an insult to the well-known Indian cricketer and want it to be named differently.