Threats of revenge by using weaponised Mankads is proof enough, certainly to me, that the current Mankad laws are ill-written.

If those Mankads did happen, the series would descend into a farce.

The MCC's attempts at fixing the Mankad issue haven't work. IMO they've made things worse.

So... here's another attempt by me to suggest better Mankad laws.

Main Objectives;

1. reduce "bad blood"
2. eliminate any advantage for the non-striker
3. make Mankads easier to rule on, or... worst case.. not make them any harder than today's laws

New law, in principle. Exact words to be worked out by cricket lawyers.

The Point of Safety. Current law this is "the moment the bowler’s arm reaches the highest point of his/her normal bowling action in the delivery swing". This has been clarified by the MCC, but not in the laws themselves, that this really means "when the arm is vertical". This part of the law can remain unchanged. However, I do think it should be change to something more obvious and easier to judge (ie when front foot lands), this can remain as it is today.

If the bowler bowls, and the umpire rules that the non-striker left their ground before the Point of Safety, then the fielding captain is given a choice;

1. keep the result of the delivery as it was. No effect.
2. the ball/delivery is called dead, and is to be re-bowled. Any outcome from the delivery are negated, as if they didn't happen.

Additionally;
The bowler can stop delivery if they see the non-striker leave early.
The non-striker cannot be run out. Even if they leave before the safe point..
The umpire can penalise a non-striker for time wasting if they think it's warranted. 5 run penalty, as per other offences. Umpires would be encouraged to warn the non-striker, or perhaps the entire batting team if needed, before actually penalising.

The main change is the offer of a dead ball.

If the batsman scores runs, even winning the game, the fielding captain can call dead ball and it's re-bowled.

The fielding captain can reject the offer of dead ball. They'd do this if a wicket was taken. Or at other times, eg a dot ball might suit them.

This change eliminates run outs, and the bad blood caused by them.
The biggest complaint will be "we scored enough runs to win the game, but now it's being un-done". The answer is "your non-striker broke the rules, so it doesn't count". It will also be a much rarer event, as it can only happen at the very end of a game. Current Mankads can happen from the first delivery.

One of the advantages some non-strikers try to gain by leaving early is changing ends when it's greatly advantageous to them eg needing single off last delivery of over, or first if lesser batsman on strike.
The dead ball offer mitigates this.

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:38:40 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> Threats of revenge by using weaponised Mankads is proof enough, certainly to me, that the current Mankad laws are ill-written.
>
> If those Mankads did happen, the series would descend into a farce.
>
> The MCC's attempts at fixing the Mankad issue haven't work. IMO they've made things worse.
>
> So... here's another attempt by me to suggest better Mankad laws.
>
> Main Objectives;
>
> 1. reduce "bad blood"
> 2. eliminate any advantage for the non-striker
> 3. make Mankads easier to rule on, or... worst case.. not make them any harder than today's laws
>
> New law, in principle. Exact words to be worked out by cricket lawyers.
>
> The Point of Safety. Current law this is "the moment the bowler’s arm reaches the highest point of his/her normal bowling action in the delivery swing". This has been clarified by the MCC, but not in the laws themselves, that this really means "when the arm is vertical". This part of the law can remain unchanged. However, I do think it should be change to something more obvious and easier to judge (ie when front foot lands), this can remain as it is today.
>
> If the bowler bowls, and the umpire rules that the non-striker left their ground before the Point of Safety, then the fielding captain is given a choice;
>
> 1. keep the result of the delivery as it was. No effect.
> 2. the ball/delivery is called dead, and is to be re-bowled. Any outcome from the delivery are negated, as if they didn't happen.
>
> Additionally;
> The bowler can stop delivery if they see the non-striker leave early.
> The non-striker cannot be run out. Even if they leave before the safe point.
> The umpire can penalise a non-striker for time wasting if they think it's warranted. 5 run penalty, as per other offences. Umpires would be encouraged to warn the non-striker, or perhaps the entire batting team if needed, before actually penalising.
>
> The main change is the offer of a dead ball.
>
> If the batsman scores runs, even winning the game, the fielding captain can call dead ball and it's re-bowled.
>
> The fielding captain can reject the offer of dead ball. They'd do this if a wicket was taken. Or at other times, eg a dot ball might suit them.
>
> This change eliminates run outs, and the bad blood caused by them.
> The biggest complaint will be "we scored enough runs to win the game, but now it's being un-done". The answer is "your non-striker broke the rules, so it doesn't count". It will also be a much rarer event, as it can only happen at the very end of a game. Current Mankads can happen from the first delivery.
>
> One of the advantages some non-strikers try to gain by leaving early is changing ends when it's greatly advantageous to them eg needing single off last delivery of over, or first if lesser batsman on strike.
> The dead ball offer mitigates this.

a dead ball caused this current controversy :-)

just make it the ball is dead when the umpire signals

and if he sees the batsman leave the crease ( cheating ) he signals dead ball dead with signal like touching his left shoulder with his right hand..... 3 strikes and you are out