In relation to the Mankad issue and its increased regularity especially in T20 cricket.
Bowlers are penalised for going 1mm over the crease for a no ball and it cost the team one run plus a free hit which could mean the penalty is 7 runs if the free hit is hit for 6. Bowlers are also penalised if they’re stray outside the markers and the ball is called a wide and it could also cost their team 7 runs if the additional bowl is hit for 6. That’s all fine because it’s in the rules.
The Mankad is in the rules but it’s not a good look and creates tension amongst the players so with all the technology involved in the game what if a penalty is introduced to the batting team if the batter leaves the crease before the ball is bowled.
The technology and penalty take the pressure off the bowlers and the umpires and like the bowler’s penalties means the batters have to stick to the rules of the game.
Is 2 or 3 runs too much of a penalty, keen to get your thoughts.

It only creates tension among the batsman….I couldn’t agree with you more mate, stay in the crease or face the penalty!!

Mankads should be eliminated permanently from any form of the game... to counter that (especially in T20 and ODIs) - create a small 90deg line is painted either side of the pitch at 3 feet out from the popping crease and that is the legal max zone a player can back up at all times .. 2 offences and you're out!

I personally don’t like the rule but I understand the importance of the batsman not getting a head start. Therefore, I would agree with you and prefer a penalty of some sought, say 1 or 2 run penalty against the batting side and specifically the batsman for leaving their crease early.

I also agree the bowlers get penalised for every indiscretion, wide no ball etc but the bowlers do get the chance to redeem themselves whereas a mistake from the batsman often leads to their dismissal and no chance to redeem themselves until the next innings or match.

Another reason it should be a penalty rather than a loss of their wicket.

Great point. I agree with Neil, if this is the only way the bowler can think of dismissing a batsmen, then they need to question why they are playing.
Why not change both rules.
Bowler: Only if the front foot is entirely over the popping crease, is it a No-Ball. To reduce the penalty for a bowler, apply a 3 run penalty, with no free hit. The short forms of the game is already too much in favour of batsmen, allowing for the possibility of a 7 run penalty for being for having your front foot on the line (but not behind it) is too harsh.
Batter: Until the bowler enters their delivery stride, some part of the batter's body or equipment, must be grounded behind the popping crease, as soon as the delivery stride begins, the batter can leave the crease without the possibility of being "runout" by the bowler. If the bowler enters their delivery stride and then attempts to run out the non striker, they should be penalised (maybe 5 runs, same as hitting a helmet behind the wicketkeeper, even though the ICC insist that players protect themselves)

Hello Guys
Totally support Waynes's thoughts here ... something needs to be done as the Mankad is not a good look for our game under any circumstance.
In the past the protocol has been for the bowler to give the offending batsman a warning and after that he or she is fair game. Perhaps the process for the bowler or fielding side should be to make their observation of cheating by the batsman known to the umpire officially. The umpire can then refer it up the review umpire where the current video technology can be utilized while the bowler is walking back to his mark. If the batsman is found to be cheating by the technology the umpire can signal to all and sundry similar to the power play wave of the arm we see now. This then puts the batsman and batting side on notice that you are now fair game if you cross the line again. It will also send a message throughout the game and hopefully lessen the incidents of the Mankad.

Stay in your crease, if the batsman gets a head start and they take a quick single and makes his ground by the barest of margins the bowling team doesn’t get the ground back and miss out on a runout.
I do like Waynes idea of penalty runs to save tension.
Then again tension is part of the game.

Same penalty as a no ball, 6 runs off the team score plus ball included in over .
In addition in white ball cricket leg byes not counted at all , bowler beats the bat hits pad and gets penalised ( crazy),batsman can be run out and only advised at completion of run ,batsman who was on strike remain on strike.

How about something completely left field, if you get caught leaving early, for the remainder of your innings your feet must make the ground past the crease when running between wickets, not just your bat. This could cost countless runs during an innings.

I agree a run penalty would be appropriate but how about rather than have a fixed run penalty, why not simply disallow the runs scored that ball, like when a wicket is disallowed on a no-ball or a batter incurs a short run when running for a second. Just imagine how pixssed off the batter facing is going to get when his running partner keeps costing him runs!!

Cracker I’ve been saying for 12 months, if the batsman leaves early it classed as a short run. Simple and takes away any thoughts of the bowling team needing to do a mankad.

Before starting I don't disagree with what everyone has said above. The only thing I would consider is the need to avoid additional umpires involved or interpretation from a third umpire. This can be done in the High-Performance environment, but it creates a gap between Professional cricket and Park cricket. Park cricketers need to see this being easily officiated, and with only one possible interpretation, not only on TV but in their own games to ensure they don't end up miss behaving. (And we know how real that can be).

Cricket has elements that don't make sense. For one, a fielder who claimed a half volley catch was considered a very ordinary human, but a batter who nicked one to the keeper and stands their ground was just playing the game. (When you think about it, they are effectively the same thing). Put this up for interpretation in front of a non-cricketer QC to rule on and I believe there is no way in the world they are going to sign off on it. I hear you say but what about the swings and roundabouts theory of walking or not walking, yes, I used that myself, but the fact is I was knowingly and willingly disregarding the rules. I was also the bloke who was filthy when someone claimed a catch. You can't have it both ways.

Historically running a batter out from the non-strikers end was not a good look and against the spirit of the game. The game was played differently years ago, not only in competitive spirit, but it was far less professional as we know. As time has passed, the players have sought every advantage in the way they bowl, bat, field, and other. To not take advantage of running between the wickets would be silly and through short form cricket we have seen the batter effectively take liberties that were not taken (at least so obviously) when the Vinoo Mankad ran out Bill Brown in 1947.

For mine, the bowler does not get a warning about bowling a no-ball, nor should the batter about leaving their ground. All sports have to change their rules when the players flaunt a loophole, and this is what has happened in cricket. We all make a fuss when the vision shows the batter was not really trying to take advantage - but to prevent those who willingly take advantage the interpretation and acceptance should change.

We used to be able to leave our car unlocked and let our kids play cricket in the street, heavens above we used to be able to buy things with cash. The world has changed and so too should our interpretation of the run out at the non-strikers end.

So, after all that and bless you if you are still reading, I would say the most effective way to move forward is simply put all the pressure on the batter to be in their crease. The penalty - you are out. If enough batters get run out, we will quickly adjust and learn how to stay in our crease.
No need for an extra official, can be done in local cricket as well as on TV. Same as baseball, by all means sneak off base but don't get caught or you will be out.
I do also worry about the influence of what we see on TV verses what we expect in park cricket. The low catch interpretation on TV is now seeing more batters stand their ground in the parks which is not a good look nor the way we used to play!
(Just an opinion)