What Is the Mankad Rule and Why Is It Controversial?

In early 2025, an IPL match between the Punjab Kings and the Lucknow Super Giants became the centre of global debate. Bowler Digvesh Rathi attempted to run out Jitesh Sharma at the non-striker’s end. The third umpire ruled that Rathi’s bowling arm had already passed the legal release point, so the dismissal was overturned. Within minutes, clips spread across social media. Analysts, former players, and fans reignited an old argument: Is a “Mankad” clever cricket or unsporting behaviour?

The term “Mankad” refers to the dismissal of a non-striker who leaves the crease before the bowler releases the ball. It is one of the most divisive laws in cricket, legal under the Laws of Cricket but often branded unfair in spirit. This article explains the origins of the rule, how it is applied, why it continues to cause controversy, and what its future might hold.

Origins and Name: The Story Behind "Mankad"

The rule owes its name to Vinoo Mankad, one of India’s most accomplished all-rounders. In the 1947–48 Test series against Australia, Mankad ran out Australian batsman Bill Brown twice at the non-striker’s end. Brown had left his crease before Mankad released the ball, so Mankad stopped his delivery stride and broke the stumps.

The press coined the term “Mankading” to describe the act. Some newspapers criticised it as unsporting. However, Australian captain Sir Donald Bradman came to Mankad’s defence, stating clearly that it was within the laws and that Brown had been warned. Bradman’s support gave legitimacy to the act, but the name “Mankad” stuck, often unfairly portraying Mankad as unsporting rather than simply enforcing the rules.

The Law: When Is Mankading Legal?

The Laws of Cricket categorise Mankad as a form of run out under Law 38. A non-striker may be run out

“from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball.”

 This means the bowler can attempt the dismissal right up to the point at which their arm passes the vertical in the bowling action.

For many years, the dismissal sat under Law 41, which deals with unfair play. Critics saw that classification as evidence that Mankading was unsporting. In 2022, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), custodians of the Laws, shifted it entirely into Law 38. This change reinforced its legitimacy by confirming it is no different from other forms of run out, whether it happens in the first over, off a no ball, or even or in a tense Super Over.

If the bowler attempts the run out but misses, the ball is declared dead and does not count. The law does not require a bowler to issue a warning, although courtesy has often led bowlers to warn a batsman once before attempting it. Ultimately, Mankading is part of the game, just as much as any delivery of the ball bowled within the rules.

Mechanics, Variants, and Edge Cases

The key nuance lies in timing. The attempt is legal only until the point when the bowler’s arm would normally be expected to release the ball. If the arm has passed the vertical and entered the release phase, the run-out attempt is invalid.

Common scenarios include:

• A bowler stopping mid-stride to break the stumps when the non-striker has backed up too far.

• A bowler reaches the top of the bowling action and spots the batsman out of their ground, then legally breaks the wicket.

• An attempt is disallowed if the arm has already moved past vertical, even if the batsman is metres down the pitch.

These cases are often reviewed by the third umpire with slow-motion cameras. Even in the case of a no-ball, the non-striker can still be run out under Law 38, as it is independent of the delivery outcome.

Noteworthy Incidents in Cricket History

The first famous example came with Mankad dismissing Bill Brown in 1947–48. Since then, numerous cases have reignited the debate.

• Kapil Dev vs Peter Kirsten (1992/93): The Indian captain ran out the South African batsman in an ODI, sparking heated reactions.

• Sachithra Senanayake vs Jos Buttler (2014): The Sri Lankan bowler dismissed Buttler in an ODI, leading to controversy and criticism in England.

• Ravi Ashwin vs Jos Buttler (IPL 2019): Ashwin’s runout of Buttler triggered one of the biggest debates in IPL history, dividing players and commentators.

• Deepti Sharma vs Charlie Dean (2022): In a women’s ODI, Sharma ran out Dean to secure victory for India against England. This case drew global attention and prompted the MCC to clarify the law.

• Shadab Khan vs Fazalhaq Farooqi (2023): A Pakistan vs Afghanistan clash included another non-striker run-out attempt, adding to the narrative in T20 internationals.

• Digvesh Rathi vs Jitesh Sharma (IPL 2025): The third umpire overturned Rathi’s attempt, ruling that his arm had passed the release point. This recent example highlights how fine the margins can be.

Other instances, such as Adam Zampa’s failed attempt in the Big Bash League, led to MCC clarifications on release point and timing.

Why Is It Controversial?

Spirit of Cricket and Sportsmanship

Critics argue that Mankading breaches the spirit of cricket, which emphasises fairness and gentlemanly conduct. Many believe bowlers should warn batsmen first. Supporters counter that non-strikers who leave their crease early are themselves gaining an unfair advantage, often shortening the pitch by a metre or more. To them, enforcing the law simply restores fairness.

Ambiguities and Grey Areas

The main grey area is the phrase “would normally have been expected to release the ball.” Because bowling actions vary, umpires have discretion. This can lead to disagreements, especially when appeals are withdrawn to avoid reputational damage.

Changing Laws and Recent Shifts

The MCC’s 2022 reclassification under Law 38 gave the rule formal legitimacy. However, controversy persists because fans and players often conflate legality with sportsmanship. The Zampa incident in the Big Bash forced further clarification, showing that even with updated laws, the optics remain sensitive.

Arguments For and Against: A Balanced View

Arguments in favour:

• Prevents non-strikers from backing up unfairly and stealing ground.

• Legal within the rules and now explicitly placed under run out.

• Promotes fairness by deterring batsmen from ignoring the crease.

• Provides a necessary check in the high-speed T20 era, where every run counts.

Arguments against:

• Viewed as unsporting, contrary to cricket’s traditions.

• Creates negative optics in high-profile matches.

• Ambiguities around timing can cause inconsistent outcomes.

• Emotional backlash from fans and sponsors can outweigh the legal justification.

The controversy persists because of this clash between written law and cultural expectations.

How Umpires and Broadcast Officials Handle It

On-field umpires must judge whether the non-striker was out of their ground and whether the attempt came before the release point. Appeals are essential; without an appeal, the umpire cannot give the batsman out.

In televised matches, the third umpire uses replays and multiple angles to confirm the exact moment of release. This technology is vital, especially in tournaments like the IPL, where scrutiny is high. Captains occasionally withdraw appeals to avoid criticism, while match referees may intervene if conduct escalates.

What This Means for Players, Captains, and Fans

For bowlers, knowledge of the law allows them to act within the rules while being mindful of public perception. Some choose to warn first, others do not.

For batsmen, the lesson is simple: stay within the crease until the ball is released. Even a small lapse can result in dismissal.

Captains face strategic decisions about whether to uphold appeals, balancing match advantage against possible backlash.

Fans need to understand that legality and perceived fairness do not always align. Education about the law can reduce extreme reactions and help audiences appreciate the balance of rights and responsibilities.

Looking Forward: Does Mankad Have a Future?

The law will likely remain. Some propose stricter definitions of release points or even penalties instead of dismissals, such as awarding extra runs to the fielding side if the non-striker leaves early. However, codifying a warning requirement seems unlikely, since it undermines the deterrent effect.

As franchise leagues and T20 cricket expand, Mankads may become more common and gradually normalised. Player behaviour may also adapt, with non-strikers being more cautious. In time, the controversy could fade as fans become used to seeing it treated as an ordinary run-out.

Conclusion: What Is the Mankad Rule and Why It Remains Controversial

The Mankad rule allows bowlers to run out non-strikers who leave their crease before the ball is released. It is fully legal under Law 38, yet it remains one of cricket’s most contentious practices. The debate stems not from its legality but from cultural tension between law and spirit.

As long as the rule exists, bowlers, batsmen, captains, and fans will continue to wrestle with questions of fairness, sportsmanship, and optics. The best way to understand it is to watch real examples, analyse both timing and intent, and decide where you stand.

Whether one sees it as clever cricket or poor etiquette, the Mankad remains a vivid reminder that cricket is as much about interpretation and culture as it is about the written laws.