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 responses<strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>ACO</strong> 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”, <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> 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”<strong>and</strong> should be out. Otherwise why notapply a similar relief to the striker too? Butlet’s have an unambiguous situation - Scrapthe law <strong>and</strong> I’ll be happy.Will Law 42.15 be scrapped once <strong>and</strong>for all? If not, why not?Ian Springer, Dorset, wrote:I found the article Beyond the Boundary inissue14 both interesting <strong>and</strong> a little annoying.I agree with all the comments regardingthe Spirit of <strong>Cricket</strong>, but I cannotunderst<strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> against theSpirit of <strong>Cricket</strong>. 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 runs<strong>and</strong> 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, <strong>and</strong> therefore unlawful, actions.This warning sounds entirely withinthe Spirit of <strong>Cricket</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> does not keep atleast his bat grounded behind the poppingcrease then he will be seen to be trying tosteal a run <strong>and</strong> that this is unfair <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> if these were within theSpirit of <strong>Cricket</strong> or the Laws of the game.Most see the Laws of <strong>Cricket</strong> giving thebenefit to the batsmen, maybe this is onearea that leans a little in the bowlers favour,<strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>Cricket</strong> 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, <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>Cricket</strong> in mind. Iwould therefore suggest that we, as umpires,look at this issue <strong>and</strong> come up with adefinitive answer.If we look at the role of the non-striker,it has become custom <strong>and</strong> 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 st<strong>and</strong> 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
I believe this is a fairly easy Law to“fix”. The non-striker should be allowed toleave his ground to back up, with nopenalty to the batting side until either thebatsman has played the ball, or attempted toplay it. This is then similar to the actions ofthe wicketkeeper - where the ‘keeper cannottake the ball in front of the stumps if thebatsman hasn’t touched the ball. The samerisks apply to the non-striker as now, so ifhe is out of his ground when the ball is deflectedonto the stumps off a member of thefielding side, he is out run out. Alternatively,if the striker elects not to run - or ifhe does! - there is still the potential for arun out at the non-striker’s end.However this simple reworking of theLaw would reduce the workload of the nonstriker’sumpire; at present, the umpire ischecking for no-balls, is the non-striker inhis ground, was the bowler in his deliverystride, is the batsman out? Instead, the umpirecan check the no-ball, then immediatelyturn to the business end, where theimportant mechanics matter!Peter Woodman, Devon, wrote:Having read the Beyond the Boundarypiece in Edition 14, I found the conclusionboth illogically <strong>and</strong> unreasonably bias infavour of the batsman. There is nothing“fair” or “within the Spirit” for a nonstrikerto gain an unfair (in practice, “unreasonable”)advantage by advancing (orrepeatedly advancing) down the pitch beforea delivery is bowled. There is both alaw <strong>and</strong> a line – literally – why draw a different,moral, one? The “Spirit”, to mymind, is on the batsman to observe the law.The “put” should not even be on thebowler to remind the batsman, though, inpractice, most if not all, will give the “caution”first. The breach of either the law orthe warning will always be by the batsman,so why castigate the fielding side. If we areto penalise “one short”, for example, oftenby the very finest of margins, why shouldwe allow a batsman a yard or more advantageat the start of a potential run? What isa stumping, in essence, but the same thingat the other end? A balanced view, surely,should not conclude bowler “abuse” <strong>and</strong>Kartik, his captain <strong>and</strong> “Athers” have allgot it spot on!Derek Rees, <strong>Wales</strong>, said:I am the Instructor <strong>and</strong> Chairman of theLlanelli Branch of ECB <strong>ACO</strong> <strong>and</strong> I have justread the above article <strong>and</strong> am, quite frankly,astounded that it suggests that the runningout of the non-striker who is trying to gainan unfair advantage is somehow unfair <strong>and</strong>against the “Spirit of the Game”Law 42.15 is quite specific. It permits thebowler to attempt to run out the non-strikerbefore the bowler enters his delivery strudewhere the non-striker is attempting to gainan advantage by starting to run early.If we, as umpires choose to ignore thisfact then I ask myself,where do wedraw the line. Dowe choose to ignorethe other penaltiesunder Law 42?I accept that, inthe “Spirit of theGame”, we as umpireswill ask thecaptain if he wantsthe appeal to st<strong>and</strong>.This is traditional<strong>and</strong> it is normal for abowler to warn thenon-striker on thefirst occurrence.But, if the captainrefuses then that isit, the non-strikermust be given out<strong>and</strong> the game continues.To suggest thatthis action is unfaircannot be acceptableunder the Laws. It isquite clear that it isnot a “grey” are buta clearly laid downrequirement that thenon-striker shouldbe attempting togain an unfair advantage.Murali Kartik following his ‘mankading’ of Alex Barrow at theend of the county seasonECB <strong>ACO</strong> were pleased to receive John Holder’s thoughts <strong>and</strong> printthem below. We fully endorse his views.John Holder wrote:It is pure nonsense to accuse a bowler for unsporting behaviour when he runs out anon-striker who has left his ground early, especially when that batsman has previouslybeen warned for this act. The sole reason for a non-striker leaving his ground early isto increase his chances of getting to the other end as quickly as possible, thereby gainingan unfair advantage.Before the law was changed, abowler could get into his delivery stride<strong>and</strong> instead of releasing the ball, stop,wait till the non-striker has left hisground <strong>and</strong> break the wicket. That wastotally unsporting <strong>and</strong> could be regardedas bringing the game into disrepute. Thepowers that be rightly changed the lawso that the runout could only be affectedwhile the bowler was running up to thewicket. Once the bowler had reachedhis delivery stride he could not run thenon-striker out.For a non-striker to leave his groundwhile the bowler is running up is blatantcheating, doubly so when he has beenwarned previously. Gareth Batty wascorrect in upholding the appeal in thematch against Somerset <strong>and</strong> for Surreyto be accused of unsporting behaviour ispure hypocrisy. Only when non-strikerswho transgress are given out will thisact of cheating stop.e-mail us at ecbaco@ecb.co.uk 13 contact us on 0121 446 2710