The MCC's 2022 decision to move the Mankad dismissal from 'unfair play' to 'run-out' — legitimising it as a normal dismissal — ended 75 years of treating the mode of dismissal as a violation of cricket's spirit, provoking fierce debate about tradition versus tactical legitimacy.
Vinoo Mankad's 1947-48 dismissal of Bill Brown in a Test match at Sydney gave the technique its name. Bill Brown had been warned previously and continued to leave his crease early. Mankad ran him out without delivering the ball. Despite being entirely legal, the reaction was so hostile that Mankad was publicly criticised even as his action was within the laws.
For 75 years, Mankad run-outs remained technically legal but practically taboo — a bowler who used the dismissal was expected to warn the batsman first, and if they didn't, they faced significant social and media pressure.
Several high-profile Mankading controversies in the preceding decade forced the issue. R Ashwin ran out Jos Buttler in the 2019 IPL, creating enormous controversy. Charlotte Edwards controversially ran out a non-striker in women's cricket. Deep Dasgupta and other former players engaged in public debate about whether warnings should be mandatory.
The MCC's 2022 review concluded that the non-striker who backs up too far is gaining an unfair advantage and the bowler has every right to enforce the laws.
Since Vinoo Mankad ran out Bill Brown without warning in 1947-48, 'Mankading' — dismissing a non-striker who leaves the crease before the bowler releases — had been classified under Law 41 (Unfair Play). This classification meant that while technically legal, it carried an implicit stigma: bowlers who used it were often criticised for violating the 'spirit of cricket'. In 2022, the MCC moved the dismissal to Law 38 (Run Out), reclassifying it as a conventional run-out rather than an unsporting act. The change was presented as clarifying that backing up too far is genuinely cheating by the batsman — and the bowler has every right to run them out.
1947-48: Vinoo Mankad dismisses Bill Brown — the original incident that named the technique
2019 IPL: R Ashwin runs out Jos Buttler without warning — massive controversy
2020s: Multiple women's cricket incidents; consistent calls for clarity
October 2022: MCC moves Mankad from Law 41 (Unfair Play) to Law 38 (Run Out)
2023: Increased use of the dismissal globally as stigma partially lifted
1947-48
Vinoo Mankad runs out Bill Brown — Mankading enters cricket vocabulary
2019
R Ashwin Mankads Jos Buttler in IPL — major controversy
2021
MCC begins review of the rule's classification
October 2022
Mankad moved from Law 41 to Law 38 — becomes conventional run-out
“I've always maintained that running out the non-striker is completely within the laws. The law change just makes the reality clear — this is a legitimate dismissal.”
“It's in the laws of the game. The laws are the laws. I think there's a spirit of the game issue — but I have to accept it.”
“The move to Law 38 reflects the reality that a non-striker who leaves the crease before the ball is delivered is gaining an advantage. The bowler is entirely within their rights to dismiss them.”
The law change did not immediately eliminate cultural resistance — many teams still consider Mankading unsporting, particularly in friendly or lower-stakes matches. But at international level, the dismissal is now used with less social penalty than before.
The most significant change is for junior cricket — coaches can now teach the technique as a legitimate tactical option rather than something used only after warnings. The practical impact at Test and ODI level has been modest; the symbolic change is significant.
The law change remains in force and has been broadly accepted, though debates about appropriate warnings and match context continue. The reclassification is seen as the MCC acknowledging that the dismissal is tactically legitimate — though cultural resistance to using it persists in some cricketing traditions.
The Mankad law change is cited as an example of cricket's laws catching up with its actual practices. The 75-year gap between legal permission and practical normalisation reflected how deeply cricket's 'spirit' can override its written rules — for better or worse.
Critics argue the change will lead to more unsporting use of the dismissal. Supporters argue it correctly identifies the non-striker's backing up as the rule violation — the bowler is merely enforcing the law.
ICC vs Cricket World
2005-07-07
The Super Sub rule, introduced in 2005, allowed ODI teams to replace one player mid-match — creating a massive tactical imbalance that rewarded the toss winner and was abandoned within 18 months as one of cricket's most embarrassing regulatory failures.
ICC vs Cricket Community
2016-06-01
The ICC's 2016 proposal to divide Test cricket into two tiers — with promotion and relegation — was opposed so ferociously by India, the BCCI, and virtually every player that it was abandoned before implementation, but the debate it sparked about Test cricket's future continues.
ICC vs Bowlers Worldwide
2020-07-08
The ICC's temporary COVID-era ban on using saliva to shine the cricket ball became permanent in 2022, eliminating a century-old ball-maintenance practice and permanently disadvantaging bowlers — a decision that continues to divide the sport.