Is running out the non-striker when he's backing up "against the spirit of the game"?

[Uppercut]

Which brings me back round to

it's just as well benchy's around to tell me why I hold all of my opinions. Enlightening.

 

[nexxus]

Am I understanding this wrong? Sounds like he Mankaded him?

Don't see how some mythical 'spirit' comes into this equation. The batsman took an unfair advantage, was warned and then did it again, bang, off go the bails, on his bike. In the vein as the Finn hitting the stumps issue. He got a warning, did it again, dead ball. Too bad, so sad, told you not to do it.

It's tough if he has hard feelings and if I was Karthik I'd tell my captain to stuff off, he certainly isn't apologizing on my behalf.

Not walking is against the spirit, we don't castigate batsmen for doing that. It's funny how any kind of unusual dismissal or dismissal as a result of brain-deadedness is considered against the spirit. As if they don't get enough in their favour as it is.

 

[ganeshran]

Agree with Benchy. To do it out of the blue by tricking the batsmen is obviously against the spirt of cricket even though it will be allowed as per the rule book.

However once a warning has been given, then running him out is perfectly fine. What is the point of having that rule if people are going to cry spirit of cricket every time its invoked. Might as well remove it.

 

[doesitmatter]

when you can throw within the laws of the game you can Mankad as well...

 

[nexxus]

It is against the spirit if no warning is given by the bowler. Otherwise it would turn into a farce, because batsmen generally don't look at the ball when it is being bowled, they time leaving the crease for when they expect the ball to be released. So if the bowler goes to bowl but holds the ball there's every chance the non striker will be out of his crease despite not trying to gain an unfair advantage like you're trying to make out.

Taking 10 wickets by tricking the non striker is clearly not in the spirit of the contest.

If he's out of crease by the time the bowler gets to the stumps, I've got no issue, run him out, don't even need a warning for me. If the bowler does a double take and fakes bowling and then runs him out, that's not on. The umpire should call dead ball.

 

[benchmark00]

If he's out of crease by the time the bowler gets to the stumps, I've got no issue, run him out, don't even need a warning for me. If the bowler does a double take and fakes bowling and then runs him out, that's not on. The umpire should call dead ball.

That's just such an unrealistic situation. No way is any batsman going to try and get a few extra metres while the bowler is still running in. If they are trying to legitimately gain some metres they do so in the delivery stride.

 

[nexxus]

That's just such an unrealistic situation. No way is any batsman going to try and get a few extra metres while the bowler is still running in. If they are trying to legitimately gain some metres they do so in the delivery stride.

I remember Kapil Dev running Peter Kirsten out before he hit his stride way back when. Crowd booed but silly young me was just wondering "Well, he was out of his crease, what's the big deal?"

Apparently he had warned Kirsten multiple times throughout the tour and just had had enough.

Just to refine my thought, I think it's not fine to 'trick' the batsman, eg. Following through and holding the ball, then running the batsman out.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I haven't seen the actual incident yet, but...

As far as I can tell, Barrow was warned, and then wandered outside his crease anyway. It's very important to note that the FC playing conditions are different to the international game's laws in that the run out can only be effected before the bowler enters his delivery stride. This means that (i) you can legally be some way down at the point of release and still be well within the laws, and (b) you must be chronically inattentive to stray before the delivery stride (defined as "the stride during which the delivery swing is made, whether the ball is released or not: (it) starts when the bowler’s back foot lands for that stride and ends when the front foot lands in the same stride" - this should preclude any trick).

It seems to me that Barrow has either paid zero attention, or deliberately tried to take liberties. I don't know which is the most laudable... either way Kartik is in the clear to my eyes and - even with my well known views about Surrey - I think they were well within their rights to run Barrow out. Apologising now, however, begs more questions than answers.

To my mind, this is not unsporting - certainly no more than the initial act of leaving your ground early. I don't think there are comparisons to be drawn with the freak Bell run out last summer, or the Collingwood / Grant Elliott shambles when England ran out a batsman they'd knocked over. That was unsporting. This is just thick.

 

[Cruxdude]

I really do not understand why the captain apologized here, it only lets Kartik down as Kartik was in the right here and also vehemently argued the same on twitter.

 

[nexxus]

Bar the groveling Batty & co., I'm struggling to find anyone who says it's unsporting. There aren't many comments on the CI article but they all seem to agree that Kartik has nothing to feel contrite over.

So, if hardly anyone, bar Somerset & their fans (who are probably just a bit biased) are upset over this, how does it go against the spirit?

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I think bowler needs to first warn the batsman if he goes out of his crease before the ball is released and then consider running him out if the same batsman does it again. In some cases, it might be that batsman genuinely mistiming his strides and getting out of the crease early and otherwise some are taking the advantage. There's a line between when batsman deliberately does things and when he mistimes it. It's also against the spirit of the game when non striker tries to gain an obvious advantage by striding out early.

If the bowler has intentions of acting his bowling action for the particular purpose of run-out, that's just not on imo

 

[pat_b]

been warned, still persisted so was rightly ran out. none issue for me. just seen them discussing it now on tv and guess they're only apologizing because some PR agent or whatever said they should

 

[SteveNZ]

Quite right. Of all the liberties batsmen get in this game, that's another one. So what is Kartik supposed to do? Continue to warn and warn and warn him? Where's the repercussions if the non striker does nothing? Nothing.

If it's such a moral issue, make it a legal issue. Change the rule so there's onus on both the bowler and batsmen to make sure it doesn't happen. Ridiculous we get so up in arms about these moral issues when there's rule books that can address it.

Kartik isn't remorseful and good on him.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Quite right. Of all the liberties batsmen get in this game, that's another one. So what is Kartik supposed to do? Continue to warn and warn and warn him? Where's the repercussions if the non striker does nothing? Nothing.

If it's such a moral issue, make it a legal issue. Change the rule so there's onus on both the bowler and batsmen to make sure it doesn't happen. Ridiculous we get so up in arms about these moral issues when there's rule books that can address it.

Kartik isn't remorseful and good on him.

Too bloody right. These Somerset and Surrey fans who are up in arms about this need to grow up. The batsman is in the wrong here - warned about it in the same over, his team needing to consolidate after a few quick wickets and he goes walkabout? They're not playing tiddlywinks out there for crying out loud.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Damn straight it's unsporting. If you need to resort to that malarkey to take scalps in a Test match it's fairly clear you're probably not able to take them conventionally.

If it caused a tied Test in the fifth Test of an Ashes series locked at 2-2, would anyone here be defending the bowler?

Then again, I live in a fantasy world of walkers, fielders referring catches that don't carry and sledging being purely for purposes of comedy. I know that's delusional when feeding one's family depends on their international cricketing performance, but that's just me.

 

[Red]

I find the notion that it's somehow "unsporting" intriguing.

The batsman is trying to gain some advantage. General etiquette suggests the bowler should warn the batsman (which is "sporting" enough). After that, run the ****er out if he's backing up to far.

 

[Trichromatic]

If it caused a tied Test in the fifth Test of an Ashes series locked at 2-2, would anyone here be defending the bowler?

What if it had resulted in Ashes loss for the side who missed the run out by few yards just because batsman had already covered some before ball was even delivered. Can't be even warned because it was last ball and it's not bowler task to concentrate on non-striker all the time.

Basic idea behind short run is that batsman has to run 22 yards minimum to complete the run. In fact it's probably most fundamental part of the cricket and by running less batsman is actually violating it.

Damn straight it's unsporting. If you need to resort to that malarkey to take scalps in a Test match it's fairly clear you're probably not able to take them conventionally.

It's equally unsporting if batsmen resort to these methods to score runs and avoid run outs when they are slow.

 

[silentstriker]

If it's in the spirit of the game that a batsman should have an advantage instead of the bowler, then time to do away with that 'spirit'.

 

[uvelocity]

if warned, it's alright, but...

I've never mankadded anyone, but have refused to bowl and given the non striker a spray at times.

Don't forget both teams get to bat.

 

[Top_Cat]

Intuitively don't like it and have never mankadded someone but I wouldn't be bagging someone as lacking in the spirit of the game if they did it.

Y'know, unless it was me they did it to.