Sampath doesn't like people taking Vinoo Mankad's name in vain.

Well, it's not up to me to tell him what he finds offensive, but I can
understand it.

I'm sure he's right that there were unpleasant overtones to the
coining of the term, designed to imply that brown-skinned people will
do horrible things at a time when such views were held by large
numbers of people. Cf "chinaman".

That's not how I understood it when I first heard about how the term
had come into use a quarter-century earlier: I thought running out a
batsman who's cheating was a clever thing to do and that naming it
after the great all-rounder was a hat-tip to an astute, alert and
competitive cricketer. An opinion I continue to hold.

So I can say that I certainly didn't mean it offensively.

And I wonder whether my view will eventually become more general. One
of the main reasons MCC moved the description of mankadding to Law 38
was to make it clear that it's entirely legitimate for bowlers to stop
batters "unfairly stealing a run" and remove the unpleasant
associations of having it in Law 41.

Bowlers have responded by being more willing to exploit that option
when it's being offered by a batter and some batters are terribly
aggrieved. But if bowlers continue to prevent batters cheating, it's
not too difficult to imagine mankadding becoming as "acceptable" as
the reverse sweep - which a number of people said should be banned
when people other than Mushtaq Mohammed started playing it. Nowadays,
being able to execute a reverse sweep well is a praiseworthy skill,
unlike when Mike Gatting allegedly lost a WC final by playing it.

We have to have a word for mankadding. You can't waste all that time
on "running out a batter backing up too early" every time you mention
the damn thing. I'm reminded of the story told of various old (mostly
Yorkshire) bowlers being addressed by some innocent asking why the
ball fired in at the base of the stumps is called a yorker and
replying "Well, what else would you call it?"

To which there's really no worthwhile answer. And as yet, no-one has
coined another term for "mankad" or, at least, no-one has succeeded in
getting a different word to catch on.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 8:32:16 AM UTC-5, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Sampath doesn't like people taking Vinoo Mankad's name in vain.
>
> Well, it's not up to me to tell him what he finds offensive, but I can
> understand it.
>
> I'm sure he's right that there were unpleasant overtones to the
> coining of the term, designed to imply that brown-skinned people will
> do horrible things at a time when such views were held by large
> numbers of people. Cf "chinaman".
>
> That's not how I understood it when I first heard about how the term
> had come into use a quarter-century earlier: I thought running out a
> batsman who's cheating was a clever thing to do and that naming it
> after the great all-rounder was a hat-tip to an astute, alert and
> competitive cricketer. An opinion I continue to hold.
>
> So I can say that I certainly didn't mean it offensively.
>
> And I wonder whether my view will eventually become more general. One
> of the main reasons MCC moved the description of mankadding to Law 38
> was to make it clear that it's entirely legitimate for bowlers to stop
> batters "unfairly stealing a run" and remove the unpleasant
> associations of having it in Law 41.
>
> Bowlers have responded by being more willing to exploit that option
> when it's being offered by a batter and some batters are terribly
> aggrieved. But if bowlers continue to prevent batters cheating, it's
> not too difficult to imagine mankadding becoming as "acceptable" as
> the reverse sweep - which a number of people said should be banned
> when people other than Mushtaq Mohammed started playing it. Nowadays,
> being able to execute a reverse sweep well is a praiseworthy skill,
> unlike when Mike Gatting allegedly lost a WC final by playing it.
>
> We have to have a word for mankadding. You can't waste all that time
> on "running out a batter backing up too early" every time you mention
> the damn thing. I'm reminded of the story told of various old (mostly
> Yorkshire) bowlers being addressed by some innocent asking why the
> ball fired in at the base of the stumps is called a yorker and
> replying "Well, what else would you call it?"
>
> To which there's really no worthwhile answer. And as yet, no-one has
> coined another term for "mankad" or, at least, no-one has succeeded in
> getting a different word to catch on.
>
> Cheers,
>

> Mike

roltnee; run out leaving the nonstrikers end early

On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 14:53:11 UTC, drye...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 8:32:16 AM UTC-5, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > Sampath doesn't like people taking Vinoo Mankad's name in vain.
> >
> > Well, it's not up to me to tell him what he finds offensive, but I can
> > understand it.
> >
> > I'm sure he's right that there were unpleasant overtones to the
> > coining of the term, designed to imply that brown-skinned people will
> > do horrible things at a time when such views were held by large
> > numbers of people. Cf "chinaman".
> >
> > That's not how I understood it when I first heard about how the term
> > had come into use a quarter-century earlier: I thought running out a
> > batsman who's cheating was a clever thing to do and that naming it
> > after the great all-rounder was a hat-tip to an astute, alert and
> > competitive cricketer. An opinion I continue to hold.
> >
> > So I can say that I certainly didn't mean it offensively.
> >
> > And I wonder whether my view will eventually become more general. One
> > of the main reasons MCC moved the description of mankadding to Law 38
> > was to make it clear that it's entirely legitimate for bowlers to stop
> > batters "unfairly stealing a run" and remove the unpleasant
> > associations of having it in Law 41.
> >
> > Bowlers have responded by being more willing to exploit that option
> > when it's being offered by a batter and some batters are terribly
> > aggrieved. But if bowlers continue to prevent batters cheating, it's
> > not too difficult to imagine mankadding becoming as "acceptable" as
> > the reverse sweep - which a number of people said should be banned
> > when people other than Mushtaq Mohammed started playing it. Nowadays,
> > being able to execute a reverse sweep well is a praiseworthy skill,
> > unlike when Mike Gatting allegedly lost a WC final by playing it.
> >
> > We have to have a word for mankadding. You can't waste all that time
> > on "running out a batter backing up too early" every time you mention
> > the damn thing. I'm reminded of the story told of various old (mostly
> > Yorkshire) bowlers being addressed by some innocent asking why the
> > ball fired in at the base of the stumps is called a yorker and
> > replying "Well, what else would you call it?"
> >
> > To which there's really no worthwhile answer. And as yet, no-one has
> > coined another term for "mankad" or, at least, no-one has succeeded in
> > getting a different word to catch on.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
>
> > Mike
> roltnee; run out leaving the nonstrikers end early

Chinaman: A ball bowled by a left-arm slow bowler that turns into the right-hand batsman, in effect a left-arm legspinner. Named after Puss Achong.

(Courtesy ESPN: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/a-glossary-of-cricket-terms-239756)

If you're going to start renaming things to appease the snowflakes you can't cherry pick which items you do it to; it's all or nothing.

On 11/27/2022 5:32 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Sampath doesn't like people taking Vinoo Mankad's name in vain.
>
> Well, it's not up to me to tell him what he finds offensive, but I can
> understand it.
>
> I'm sure he's right that there were unpleasant overtones to the
> coining of the term, designed to imply that brown-skinned people will
> do horrible things at a time when such views were held by large
> numbers of people. Cf "chinaman".
>
> That's not how I understood it when I first heard about how the term
> had come into use a quarter-century earlier: I thought running out a
> batsman who's cheating was a clever thing to do and that naming it
> after the great all-rounder was a hat-tip to an astute, alert and
> competitive cricketer. An opinion I continue to hold.
>
> So I can say that I certainly didn't mean it offensively.
>
> And I wonder whether my view will eventually become more general. One
> of the main reasons MCC moved the description of mankadding to Law 38
> was to make it clear that it's entirely legitimate for bowlers to stop
> batters "unfairly stealing a run" and remove the unpleasant
> associations of having it in Law 41.
>
> Bowlers have responded by being more willing to exploit that option
> when it's being offered by a batter and some batters are terribly
> aggrieved. But if bowlers continue to prevent batters cheating, it's
> not too difficult to imagine mankadding becoming as "acceptable" as
> the reverse sweep - which a number of people said should be banned
> when people other than Mushtaq Mohammed started playing it. Nowadays,
> being able to execute a reverse sweep well is a praiseworthy skill,
> unlike when Mike Gatting allegedly lost a WC final by playing it.
>
> We have to have a word for mankadding. You can't waste all that time
> on "running out a batter backing up too early" every time you mention
> the damn thing. I'm reminded of the story told of various old (mostly
> Yorkshire) bowlers being addressed by some innocent asking why the
> ball fired in at the base of the stumps is called a yorker and
> replying "Well, what else would you call it?"
>
> To which there's really no worthwhile answer. And as yet, no-one has
> coined another term for "mankad" or, at least, no-one has succeeded in
> getting a different word to catch on.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

The last 75 years, cricket world STIGMATIZED Mankad.

So it is natural if I feel a little uncomfortable.

Problem is, the cunning west is still doing the same things even today,
DEMONIZING and DEHUMANIZING entire countries, whether it is Russia,
China, Iran, India etc.

Case in point:

This germanfuck Jurgen Klinsmann DEMONIZING the entire nation of Iran
for NO REASON.

The contact between the players in the video is normal and happens ALL
THE TIME in soccer, basketball, ice hockey and other games. There is NO
CHEATING, nothing whatsoever but still that fucker demonized Iran and
the rest of the commentators went along with it, though that lady is
very fuckable.

https://twitter.com/Lowkey0nline/status/1596491666109730817
"That's their culture..."

Jurgen Klinsmann confidently asserts that Iranians have a cultural
predisposition to cheating in football matches four times in one minute.

Unchallenged.

POC have been tooo nice and tooo tolerant to the evil genocidal western
barbarians for too long. These are the genocidal germanfucks who NEVER
paid for a single crime on blacks and browns, who are ACCUSING Iran.

https://twitter.com/dijoni/status/1591656006794510336
One of the first genocide of the 20th century by the Germans in present
day Namibia. 1904 to 1908. they killed hundreds of thousands of blacks.
never forget.

https://twitter.com/dijoni/status/1592042536457363456
The German genocide before the Jewish holocaust. it was a test run in
Namibia 1904 to 1908. The world completely forgot about the German
genocide in Black Africa.

So, obviously POC will feel uncomfortable with some "words" specifically
designed to HURT POC.

On 11/27/2022 5:32 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Sampath doesn't like people taking Vinoo Mankad's name in vain.
>
> Well, it's not up to me to tell him what he finds offensive, but I can
> understand it.
>
> I'm sure he's right that there were unpleasant overtones to the
> coining of the term, designed to imply that brown-skinned people will
> do horrible things at a time when such views were held by large
> numbers of people. Cf "chinaman".
>
> That's not how I understood it when I first heard about how the term
> had come into use a quarter-century earlier: I thought running out a
> batsman who's cheating was a clever thing to do and that naming it
> after the great all-rounder was a hat-tip to an astute, alert and
> competitive cricketer. An opinion I continue to hold.
>

Thank you for "thinking independently".

I hope you remove the POISON injected into your brain by the EVIL MI6
and MI5 controlled BBC, and THINK independently in "other issues" too.

> So I can say that I certainly didn't mean it offensively.
>

I didn't take it offensively because I know you are NOT a racist.

I just want 8 billion humans to live peacefully with each other INSTEAD
of HATING and KILLING each other every day in some part of the world,
due to the EVIL US Govt CIA NSA and Oligarchic elites who just want to
PLUNDER every entity on the planet and ENSLAVE us with AI and ruthlessly
RULE THE WORLD.

> And I wonder whether my view will eventually become more general.

I hope it does ASAP.

As humans with brains and from being DIFFERENT from animals, we are
supposed to THINK and SPEAK THE TRUTH even if it hurts us.

But unfortunately most humans DON'T have the mental strength to do that.

>One
> of the main reasons MCC moved the description of mankadding to Law 38
> was to make it clear that it's entirely legitimate for bowlers to stop
> batters "unfairly stealing a run" and remove the unpleasant
> associations of having it in Law 41.
>
> Bowlers have responded by being more willing to exploit that option
> when it's being offered by a batter and some batters are terribly
> aggrieved. But if bowlers continue to prevent batters cheating, it's
> not too difficult to imagine mankadding becoming as "acceptable" as
> the reverse sweep - which a number of people said should be banned
> when people other than Mushtaq Mohammed started playing it. Nowadays,
> being able to execute a reverse sweep well is a praiseworthy skill,
> unlike when Mike Gatting allegedly lost a WC final by playing it.
>

Mushtaq Mohammed INNOVATED but cricket fans couldn't digest it, because
their brains were "programmed" to THINK certain way.

Humans find it hard to CHANGE themselves, because they NEVER introspect.

Why are the western countries TEACHING "kids" about sex and gender
change, INSTEAD of things that make "human species BETTER" like that
they should APPLY the same standards to others what they APPLY to
themselves (eliminating hypocrisy), that they have to ACCEPT FACTS/TRUTH
even if they DON'T like it etc?

I hope you and other fans here understand what I am saying.

Ask yourselves WHAT is MORE IMPORTANT to TEACH kids.

> We have to have a word for mankadding. You can't waste all that time
> on "running out a batter backing up too early" every time you mention
> the damn thing. I'm reminded of the story told of various old (mostly
> Yorkshire) bowlers being addressed by some innocent asking why the
> ball fired in at the base of the stumps is called a yorker and
> replying "Well, what else would you call it?"
>
> To which there's really no worthwhile answer. And as yet, no-one has
> coined another term for "mankad" or, at least, no-one has succeeded in
> getting a different word to catch on.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Mankad never cared that his name is used for Mankading, because he
DIDN'T understand that the west always "DEMONIZES" and associates POC
with evil things.

I myself had NO IDEA about these concepts and deceptions UNTIL twenty
years ago when the EVIL US Govt CIA NSA Psychopaths started STEALTHILY
TORTURING ME with Neuroweapons and AI for NO REASON, which was when I
started STUDYING the western countries and govts, until which point of
time I really BELIEVED in my head that western countries are ANGELIC
DEMOCRACIES.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:32:13 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>Sampath doesn't like people taking Vinoo Mankad's name in vain.
>
>Well, it's not up to me to tell him what he finds offensive, but I can
>understand it.
>
>I'm sure he's right that there were unpleasant overtones to the
>coining of the term, designed to imply that brown-skinned people will
>do horrible things at a time when such views were held by large
>numbers of people. Cf "chinaman".
>
>That's not how I understood it when I first heard about how the term
>had come into use a quarter-century earlier: I thought running out a
>batsman who's cheating was a clever thing to do and that naming it
>after the great all-rounder was a hat-tip to an astute, alert and
>competitive cricketer. An opinion I continue to hold.
>
>So I can say that I certainly didn't mean it offensively.
>
>And I wonder whether my view will eventually become more general. One
>of the main reasons MCC moved the description of mankadding to Law 38
>was to make it clear that it's entirely legitimate for bowlers to stop
>batters "unfairly stealing a run" and remove the unpleasant
>associations of having it in Law 41.
>
>Bowlers have responded by being more willing to exploit that option
>when it's being offered by a batter and some batters are terribly
>aggrieved. But if bowlers continue to prevent batters cheating, it's
>not too difficult to imagine mankadding becoming as "acceptable" as
>the reverse sweep - which a number of people said should be banned
>when people other than Mushtaq Mohammed started playing it. Nowadays,
>being able to execute a reverse sweep well is a praiseworthy skill,
>unlike when Mike Gatting allegedly lost a WC final by playing it.
>
>We have to have a word for mankadding. You can't waste all that time
>on "running out a batter backing up too early" every time you mention
>the damn thing. I'm reminded of the story told of various old (mostly
>Yorkshire) bowlers being addressed by some innocent asking why the
>ball fired in at the base of the stumps is called a yorker and
>replying "Well, what else would you call it?"
>
>To which there's really no worthwhile answer. And as yet, no-one has
>coined another term for "mankad" or, at least, no-one has succeeded in
>getting a different word to catch on.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

Run out* (see notes)

*Whodunnit

max.it

On 27/11/2022 13:32, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Sampath doesn't like people taking Vinoo Mankad's name in vain.
>
> Well, it's not up to me to tell him what he finds offensive, but I can
> understand it.
>
> I'm sure he's right that there were unpleasant overtones to the
> coining of the term, designed to imply that brown-skinned people will
> do horrible things at a time when such views were held by large
> numbers of people. Cf "chinaman".
>
> That's not how I understood it when I first heard about how the term
> had come into use a quarter-century earlier: I thought running out a
> batsman who's cheating was a clever thing to do and that naming it
> after the great all-rounder was a hat-tip to an astute, alert and
> competitive cricketer. An opinion I continue to hold.
>
> So I can say that I certainly didn't mean it offensively.
>
> And I wonder whether my view will eventually become more general. One
> of the main reasons MCC moved the description of mankadding to Law 38
> was to make it clear that it's entirely legitimate for bowlers to stop
> batters "unfairly stealing a run" and remove the unpleasant
> associations of having it in Law 41.

Yes, it was out of place in Law 41 (unlike attempting to steal a run,
which is still there), so it was logical to move it anyway.

> Bowlers have responded by being more willing to exploit that option
> when it's being offered by a batter and some batters are terribly
> aggrieved. But if bowlers continue to prevent batters cheating, it's
> not too difficult to imagine mankadding becoming as "acceptable" as
> the reverse sweep - which a number of people said should be banned
> when people other than Mushtaq Mohammed started playing it. Nowadays,
> being able to execute a reverse sweep well is a praiseworthy skill,
> unlike when Mike Gatting allegedly lost a WC final by playing it.
>
> We have to have a word for mankadding. You can't waste all that time
> on "running out a batter backing up too early" every time you mention
> the damn thing. I'm reminded of the story told of various old (mostly
> Yorkshire) bowlers being addressed by some innocent asking why the
> ball fired in at the base of the stumps is called a yorker and
> replying "Well, what else would you call it?"
>
> To which there's really no worthwhile answer. And as yet, no-one has
> coined another term for "mankad" or, at least, no-one has succeeded in
> getting a different word to catch on.

In Wisden 2015, p294, Steven Lynch said that it should probably be
called "Barkering", after Thomas Barker of Notts, who carried out the
first five such run-outs in FC matches between 1835 and 1843.

--
David North

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 19:20:05 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 27/11/2022 13:32, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> as yet, no-one has
>> coined another term for "mankad" or, at least, no-one has succeeded in
>> getting a different word to catch on.
>
>In Wisden 2015, p294, Steven Lynch said that it should probably be
>called "Barkering", after Thomas Barker of Notts, who carried out the
>first five such run-outs in FC matches between 1835 and 1843.

Mmm. That's a thing I didn't know about that titan of the game. Except
I've never heard of him in any sensible sense, which rather militates
against widespread use of the term if I'm anything like typical of
cricket fans.

The only real way of getting a new term into circulation is having a
respected commentator coin one. Michael Holding, for instance, was
probably popular enough to have been able to invent a term and give it
currency.

The trouble with that is that you also need regular repetition, and
despite the wild imaginings of certain parties, that's unlikely. At
present, a mankad happens about as often as obstructing the field. If
bowlers stop being so reluctant to use the ploy, it could become as
common as hit wicket, given that if it starts becoming common, batters
will presumably adjust to the new conditions as they did when DRS made
keeping the bat behind the pad too risky.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 20:06:45 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 19:20:05 +0000, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 27/11/2022 13:32, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >> as yet, no-one has
> >> coined another term for "mankad" or, at least, no-one has succeeded in
> >> getting a different word to catch on.
> >
> >In Wisden 2015, p294, Steven Lynch said that it should probably be
> >called "Barkering", after Thomas Barker of Notts, who carried out the
> >first five such run-outs in FC matches between 1835 and 1843.
> Mmm. That's a thing I didn't know about that titan of the game. Except
> I've never heard of him in any sensible sense, which rather militates
> against widespread use of the term if I'm anything like typical of
> cricket fans.
>
> The only real way of getting a new term into circulation is having a
> respected commentator coin one. Michael Holding, for instance, was
> probably popular enough to have been able to invent a term and give it
> currency.

If the batsman who Mankad ran out (twice) hadn't been named Brown, maybe it could have been named after him. As it is, that might be problematic.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 06:00:43 -0800 (PST), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 20:06:45 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 19:20:05 +0000, David North
>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On 27/11/2022 13:32, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> >> as yet, no-one has
>> >> coined another term for "mankad" or, at least, no-one has succeeded in
>> >> getting a different word to catch on.
>> >
>> >In Wisden 2015, p294, Steven Lynch said that it should probably be
>> >called "Barkering", after Thomas Barker of Notts, who carried out the
>> >first five such run-outs in FC matches between 1835 and 1843.
>> Mmm. That's a thing I didn't know about that titan of the game. Except
>> I've never heard of him in any sensible sense, which rather militates
>> against widespread use of the term if I'm anything like typical of
>> cricket fans.
>>
>> The only real way of getting a new term into circulation is having a
>> respected commentator coin one. Michael Holding, for instance, was
>> probably popular enough to have been able to invent a term and give it
>> currency.
>
>If the batsman who Mankad ran out (twice) hadn't been named Brown, maybe it could have been named after him. As it is, that might be problematic.

To be honest, after 70 years of the term being in use, it's just about
impossible to get another name for it unless you can get someone to
sponsor such run outs in the IPL.

Cheers,

Mike