ACO NEWSLETTER - Ecb - England and Wales Cricket Board

Laws – queriesThe ‘Mankading’incident involvingMurali Kartik dismissingSomerset’s AlexBarrow towards theend of the countyseason was raised inthe previous ‘Beyondthe Boundary’ (page11, Edition 14). Wehave receivednumerous responsesand thoughts on thetopic. We’ve included aselection below.Makading – Sehwag talks to umpires following the mankading incident which marred their game withSri Lanka earlier this yearDonald Allan, Sussex, wrote:I read with respect your well balanced articleon “Mankading” in the ACO Newsletterno 14, discussing the bowler running outthe non-striker.Why does law 42.15 exist at all? Itseems that the law explicitly always comeswithin the compass of “any action whichseems to abuse the spirit”, and so it cannotever apply. Someone has gone to the botherof describing exactly the situation in theLaw apparently in contravention of “thespirit”.The laws are terse and well considered,but I think the very existence of this law isthe cause of all the controversy as umpiresare directed not to apply it. I happen tothink that the batsman is “sneaking a run”and should be out. Otherwise why notapply a similar relief to the striker too? Butlet’s have an unambiguous situation - Scrapthe law and I’ll be happy.Will Law 42.15 be scrapped once andfor all? If not, why not?Ian Springer, Dorset, wrote:I found the article Beyond the Boundary inissue14 both interesting and a little annoying.I agree with all the comments regardingthe Spirit of Cricket, but I cannotunderstand why this must only apply to thebowler. If the various commentators care totake a look beyond Law 42.15 to just thenext point i.e. Law 42.16 “BATSMANSTEALING A RUN” which clearly statesthat “It is unfair for the batsman to attemptto steal a run during the bowlers run up”they might note that it is the actions of thebatsman that are unlawful and against theSpirit of Cricket. It even says that if thebowler does not attempt to run out eitherbatsman then the umpire should take actionas soon as the batsmen cross in their attemptto steal a run. It goes on to state thatthe fielding team be awarded 5 penalty runsand the incident reported. Surely it shouldbe argued that Kartik was being more thanfair to the batsman who obviously was notbeing fair. The Laws say he is being unfair.If as the article states Kartik warned thebatsman of what he intended then surely theumpire should have been aware of the batsman’sunfair, and therefore unlawful, actions.This warning sounds entirely withinthe Spirit of Cricket though, as is often thecase, it is not required by the Laws. It couldbe argued that the umpire was at fault here.I would suggest that at this stage it wouldserve all to point out to the batsman that ifhe leaves his ground and does not keep atleast his bat grounded behind the poppingcrease then he will be seen to be trying tosteal a run and that this is unfair and thereforeunlawful. It might further help to remindthe batsman what actions he, as theumpire, is required, by Law, to take if hesees further incidents.I admit that I am only a lowly Level 1umpire with only 5 years’ experiencewithin my small sphere of umpiring for thelocal Evening League and Dorset SundayLeague, but I have seen several cases ofthis sort of play by batsmen who know thatin tight running situations the ball is mostlikely to be thrown to the wicketkeeper thusmaking them most at risk of being run out.Kartik, being an ex-Somerset player, wasprobably aware of the batting tactics of hisopponents and if these were within theSpirit of Cricket or the Laws of the game.Most see the Laws of Cricket giving thebenefit to the batsmen, maybe this is onearea that leans a little in the bowlers favour,and maybe they should be encouraged,rather than being admonished, in using it.And as a final comment, I should pointout that I am also a Somerset C.C.C. supporter,so wish my views to be seen as asupporter of the game of Cricket in generalrather than as a partisan.David Pierrie, Lancashire, wrote:Thank you for the interesting Beyond theBoundary article re the Mankading run-outissue (Issue 14) I thought the article waswell balanced, and it allowed me to thinkabout the situation. The article showed howimportant it is to consider aspects of theLaws outside of a match environment,when emotion has ebbed away. I think whatis key, is that the Laws are not fixed, butare a work in progress, with the Rule Bookshowing the latest thinking.In the Mankading scenario, I fully agreewith the article’s thinking that it’s importantto keep the Spirit of Cricket in mind. Iwould therefore suggest that we, as umpires,look at this issue and come up with adefinitive answer.If we look at the role of the non-striker,it has become custom and practice for him(or her) to back up a few paces as thebowler runs in. Do we as umpires, in factdoes anyone in the game - including thenon-striker - consider this action to be“stealing a run” or is it simply part of thegame? The Laws themselves leave it up tothe umpire to decide if this is so, even makingthe distinction of the striker being allowedto stand well out of his ground toreceive the ball, an action that is NOT consideredstealing a run! For a run to be completed,it takes BOTH batsmen to maketheir ground at the opposite ends, so the actionsof both batsman must be equated intothe Law.e-mail us at ecbaco@ecb.co.uk 12 contact us on 0121 446 2710