The family of Vinoo Mankad has criticised calls for renaming the controversial method of dismissal, insisting they were proud to be associated with it.

The practice of running out the batter at the non-striker's end has been part of cricket's vocabulary since Mankad first deployed it during India's tour of Australia in 1947. 

Mankad ran out Australian batter Bill Brown by removing the bails at the non-striker's end after Brown had stepped well out of his crease during a tour match against an Australian XI.

Mankad, a left-arm orthodox spin, then repeated the trick in the second Test in Sydney.

The dismissal has been a source of controversy ever since with its detractors considering it unsportsmanlike, despite it being perfectly legal under the Marylebone Cricket Club Laws of Cricket.

And Australian Cricketers Association CEO Todd Greenberg and Cricket New South Wales CEO Lee Germon have led calls to stop using Mankad's name to refer to the practice of running out a batter backing up.

'I don’t think it’s a debate. I think I’s very black and white. It shouldn’t be the word Mankad,' Greenberg said on SEN on Friday.

'I agree, the players have a role in eradicating that term. It’s a run out at the non-striker’s end. [...] We have a huge opportunity and responsibility as the elite players to make sure we change that.

'Language is important. Tone is important. And an understanding that when you break rules there are consequences.'

But it appears Mankad's family are perfectly happy with their ancestor's name being associated with it instead. 

'I’m always delighted to see my grandfather being remembered,' Harsh Mankad, the grandson of Vinoo Mankad, India's No1-ranked tennis player throughout the 2000s, told the Herald Sun.

'I feel it to be a great honour for our name to be associated with a cricketing term. 

'I’d love to see the “Mankad” or “Mankading” stay and keep alive his memories and legacy as a great competitor and sportsman deeply respected and admired by everyone I’ve met and those who knew him and experienced life with him!'

On Tuesday, the debate over the legitimacy of the dismissal was reignited when Adam Zampa attempted to run out Tom Rogers in the Melbourne derby in the Big Bash.

A video review led to Rogers being given not out because Zampa's bowling arm had gone past its highest point before the leg-spinner reached back to knock the bails off.

The Melbourne Stars captain insisted he was 'well within his rights' to mankad Rogers, but was criticised by his own coach, David Hussey, who slammed the attempt as 'not the right way to play cricket'.

In October last year, the International Cricket Council changed its rules over Mankading to no longer classify it as 'Unfair Play' but simply another method of 'Run Out'. 

The controversial dismissal has always been considered a legal and fair way of dismissing a batter under the Marylebone Cricket Club Laws of Cricket.

Law 41.16.1 of the MCC code states that: 'If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out. 

'In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.'