As the CB series hurtles towards the end of the league stage, the action on the field has been quite rivetting. Of the 9 games so far, one has already ended in a tie while another couple have gone to the final over in the second innings. In addition to all this, there has also been no dearth of supplementary action on the field, none more major than the attempt by Ravi Ashwin to run out the non-striker Lahiru Thirimanne for leaving his crease during the bowling action. This, of course, is more commonly known as 'Mankading' after the Indian all-rounder Vinoo Mankad who ran out Aussie Bill Brown way back in 1947-48. I do believe that we should stop using that term and just call it a run-out. Expectedly, the incident generated a lot of controversy off the field, with strong opinions on both sides of the debate i.e. were the Indians right in appealing (apparently without a prior warning) and then were they right in withdrawing the appeal later on. Here I present some thoughts regarding the incident.
First the laws. Law 42.15 on the MCC website says that 'the bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to run-out the non-striker'. It then goes on to define the delivery stride. The laws also regard as unfair any attempt by the non-striker to gain additional time by leaving his crease before the bowler has delivered the ball. Here is where the confusion starts. I was watching the game then and Tom Moody, on air at the time, was clear that the law stated that the bowler could run-out the non-striker any time 'before delivering the ball'. I have seen this view on some other forums as well but could not find mention of this on the web-site. So is it 'before entering his delivery stride' or 'before delivering the ball' ?? Either the MCC site has not been updated correctly, or most of us are still ignorant about the laws. Nevertheless, this does not detract from my main point.
Now coming to the point about warning the batsman and the so-called 'spirit of the game'. Again the laws do not mandate that the fielding side should warn the non-striker before running him out. Hence, Ashwin was well within the rules to appeal for the run-out even if he (as Jaywardene said later) had not warned Thirimanne earlier. Now were the Indians playing the game in the right 'spirit' by asking for that run-out, ostensibly without a warning ? This brings me to the spirit of the game. Firstly, let me make it clear that I am all for the spirit of the game. I believe it is neccessary for the smooth conduct of the game, which is increasingly getting more and more competitive. We have heard the phrase quite frequently over the past couple of years whether it be Randiv's no-ball to deny Sehwag a century or in the Ian Bell incident in England last summer. But we have to be judicious as regards the situations wherein the spirit of the game should be invoked. And I am very clear that in the case of a bowler running out the non-striker for backing up too much, the spirit of the game has no place. In my opinion, it is a very clear case of a legitimate dismissal, just like a run-out or handling the ball. Let me explain why. The 'spirit of the game' should be called upon only in cases where the law is not clear on how to handle the situation that has occured or, even if the law is clear, there is enough scope of subjectivity in the opinion of the umpires (I will come to their role later). I will give an example of the second instance. A batsman has set off for a tight single and dives to get in his crease. In the process, his momentum takes the bat off the ground such that, at the instant when the bails are whipped off, the bat is within the crease but in the air (rest of his body is outside the crease). The laws clearly state that the batsman has to leave. But maybe, in such a case, there might be scope for invoking the spirit of the game. After all, the batsman had logically made his ground. Now coming to the mode of dismissal in question. I find it hard to believe that the non-striker unknowingly wanders outside the crease when the bowler is delivering the ball. After all, batsmen are taught right from the school level to watch the bowler and his hand when he is running in to bowl. Surely, it should not be too difficult for them to keep their ground till the ball has left the bowlers hand. All the batsman is trying to do by leaving his crease is to gain those couple of feet which could make all the difference between a run-out and a not-out at the other end (especially in today's TV era where even an inch short means you take the walk back to the pavilion). In fact, I would argue that with this intention in mind, if the non-striker is leaving his ground during the delivery action, it is actually HE (and not the bowler) who is not playing it fair (as made clear by the laws). To sum it up, I do feel we have to stop being so negative about this mode of dismissal and stop treating the batsman so leniently, especially since the laws are very clear on the subject. None of the warning business should apply and keep the spirit of the game for use somewhere else. Also this warning business does not make logical sense. Should it be one warning per game ? What if, in the next game, batsman again commits the same offence. Will there be a warning then too ? Or will it be one warning every series ? or once in a career ? Who keeps track of all this ?
Finally, a word on the conduct of the on-field umpires. They did their reputation no good with the way they referred the appeal to Sehwag and co. The law states that the umpires are the sole judges of fair or unfair play. Thus, when the appeal was mde by Ashwin, they should have taken it on themselves to give the batsman out or not-out. If Ashwin had not warned Thirimanne earlier, and if they felt that the spirit of the game needed to be upheld, then they should straightaway given the batsman not-out and noted that as a warning . Or else immediately given him out, provided Ashwin was yet to complete his delivery stride while removing the bails (which could have been verified by the third umpire). By referring the matter to the fielding side, they very conveniently passed the hot iron rod to Sehwag to handle. Now imagine if the day was the 2nd of April 2011 in Mumbai (the World Cup final). And for good measure, instead of Thirimanne, it was Sangakarra or Jaywardene in the crease with Sri Lanka needing 50 off 40 balls to win. Imagine Sehwag's dilemma if the decision was his to take. He would have been crucified for being too lenient had he allowed the batsman to stay (and if SL went to win the game). He would also have been crucified if he upheld the appeal, for not playing within the 'spirit of the game'. The umpires are supposed to be neutral, it is for them to take a decision and not to shy away from taking one.
To sum up this long post in one sentence: I do not think this mode of dismissal has scope for any warning to be given and the situation is too clear for the spirit of the game to be called upon. Finally, would like to make it clear that my view is not because the bowling team was Indian and that we lost the game. It would have remained the same irrespective of which game it is.
Thanks for sitting through a long one..
Cheers
Amit
No comments:
Post a Comment