Red/Yellow Cards

[Making_Splinters]

I think the simplest solution would be that the fielding team has to give the batsman a formal warning and inform the umpires of this.

After that, should a batsman continue to back up too far, they can have no complaints about being run out.

[Gingerfinch]

I think the simplest solution would be that the fielding team has to give the batsman a formal warning and inform the umpires of this.

After that, should a batsman continue to back up too far, they can have no complaints about being run out.

That's the way we use to play. Pretty simple.

[Aidan11]

It will start with the red and yellow cards, then they'll give the umpire a whistle, finally he'll end up with that vanishing spray. Not the one football uses for free kicks but the one the ECB used on KP.

[Arthur Crabtree]

SL gave warnings. But we still got WWIII.

[Gingerfinch]

SL gave warnings. But we still got WWIII.

They had every right to run out.

[D/L]

Mankading is perfecctly fine, I'd rather bowlers did it more often.

The cost is draconian. Lessen the penalty, and it will become acceptable, and the batter won't take the risk.

Lessen the penalty and the batter will take the risk, of course.

[D/L]

That's true. But my way takes all the acrimony out of the incidents, at no real cost.

...and wouldn't work.

[Making_Splinters]

SL gave warnings. But we still got WWIII.

As I said, a formal warning, including informing the umpire. The image of it being against the spirit of the game is what causes these spats, if more teams did it then that would disappear. If you're under the impression that in a World Cup final with the opposition 9 down needing 1 run, England wouldn't do it, then you can't see the rampant hypocrisy in the game.

[D/L]

I think the simplest solution would be that the fielding team has to give the batsman a formal warning and inform the umpires of this.

After that, should a batsman continue to back up too far, they can have no complaints about being run out.

Yes, there is no need at all to change things.

[Arthur Crabtree]

SL gave warnings. But we still got WWIII.

As I said, a formal warning, including informing the umpire. The image of it being against the spirit of the game is what causes these spats, if more teams did it then that would disappear. If you're under the impression that in a World Cup final with the opposition 9 down needing 1 run, England wouldn't do it, then you can't see the rampant hypocrisy in the game.

I don't think England set a good example at all in terms of the spirit of the game. And Cook's reaction was appalling. But weren't SL themselves unhappy at a mankading a few months earlier, and the batter was called back? The antipathy towards this is universal.

[D/L]

Personally I'd rather that teams and batsmen stop trying to play the "Spirit of the game" card and simply accepted it.

Not happening soon. But you're probably right, logically. My way is pragmatic.

Not sure why simply lessening the penalty can be described as "pragmatic". We would see bowlers "mankading" on a much more frequent basis if, every time they did so, it reduced the opposition's total and, in international cricket, we would then have the umpire frequently needing to refer it if there were only millimetres in it.

In other cricket, of course, the umpire alone would have to make the decision, which would add considerably to his burdens, and he would get many wrong.

It is not pragmatic at all.

[DeltaAlpha]

Personally. I don't think Mankading is any worse than the ball being fielded by the bowler, who then hurls it at the batsman's stumps if he's out of his ground. The only difference, I think, is tradition, otherwise they're the same thing - a batsman's out of his ground and the bowler has the ball.

As for red and yellow cards, which the thread is really about, no thanks. Their only purpose would be to inform the crowd that a warning's been given, but they wouldn't say anything about the warning that isn't already known.

[Albondiga]

A BATSMAN WHO LEAVES HIS CREASE BEFORE THE BALL IS BOWLED IS CHEATING; if he waited for the ball to leave the bowlers hand he could never be run out in this way........................................... AND THEN BLAME IT ON THE FIELDING SIDE; I make no apologies for the capitals as a bowler doesn't have to give a warning anyway.

[D/L]

Absolutely correct in every respect.

[GarlicJam]

A BATSMAN WHO LEAVES HIS CREASE BEFORE THE BALL IS BOWLED IS CHEATING; if he waited for the ball to leave the bowlers hand he could never be run out in this way........................................... AND THEN BLAME IT ON THE FIELDING SIDE; I make no apologies for the capitals as a bowler doesn't have to give a warning anyway.

I don't see it as cheating myself, but more a matter of taking a risk and not being prepared to pay when it doesn't come off. Other than that I agree completely.