What about the current laws for mankad dismissals?

This proposal includes the removal of the ability of the bowler to run out the non-striker in their delivery stride.

As a batsman, losing your wicket for an infraction similar in severity to bowling a no ball is a heavy punishment which affects both the individual batsman and the batting team.

For bowlers, it’s impractical to continually watch the non-striker in the run-up to a delivery, even for slow bowlers. It also creates tension between teams when a bowler attempts or completes a mankad, whether or not the current laws allow it.

And the umpires (particularly the third umpire) are currently in the unfortunate position of enforcing the letter of the laws of the game, which are directly ambiguous — as seen by the MCC’s statement above.

Does all short punish the batting side enough?

In the modern game, and especially in the T20 format, one less boundary can be the difference between winning and losing.

But more than this, the all short law would create an obligation that the non-striker has to fulfill, every delivery, as a demonstration of discipline and the spirit of cricket.

Any non-striker who is ruled all short on a delivery which is hit to the boundary will keenly feel the ire of his teammates and supporters.

Hopefully, it would only take one all short call to stop the non-striker backing up too far, and this call could be made with no ambiguity or controversy, using existing replay infrastructure.

Could this work at all levels?

Yes, the same way that the no ball rule works at all levels. Where replay technology is available, much more accurate calls of all short would be possible.

Junior cricketing umpires would be encouraged to call all short when they see it with the naked eye, so that the discipline and workmanship aspects of the spirit of cricket can be developed in every young one who plays the game.