• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Running out a backing up non-striker is:


  • Total voters
    42

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
If a batsman is out on a stroll, in spite of being warned, does that count as being in the spirit of the game?

"Then why do wicketkeepers try to run batsman out when they are batting out of the crease to slow seamers to negate their swing. Why the hypocrisy in spirit?

Pretty much.
 

Trichromatic

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
In a game where run-outs and stump-out are decided by few cms, it's unfair for a batsman to gain advantage by backing up. Fielders should be allowed to dismiss them without warning. If that seems unfair to the batsman then it would unfair to them who step out of crease and stumped by wicket keeper without warning or those who are dismissed run outs without any warning.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I didn't say it was an unfair advantage. Timing the leaving of your crease with when you think the ball is going to be bowled, as opposed to when you see it bowled, gives you an advantage over the fielding side. I don't really see why they should be honour-bound to allow that. If it's fine to do it after issuing a warning, then they might as well issue a universal warning at the start of every match and stop the batsmen from taking advantage of their wish to avoid the ten-run-outs scenario.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I didn't say it was an unfair advantage. Timing the leaving of your crease with when you think the ball is going to be bowled, as opposed to when you see it bowled, gives you an advantage over the fielding side. I don't really see why they should be honour-bound to allow that. If it's fine to do it after issuing a warning, then they might as well issue a universal warning at the start of every match and stop the batsmen from taking advantage of their wish to avoid the ten-run-outs scenario.
Well you obviously don't know what the spirit of cricket is. It's about ensuring a good clean game of cricket where the team with the best cricket skills wins the contest.

When a batsman tries to time leaving the crease he is doing so in good faith, i.e. he does so under the assumption the bowler is going to release the ball like he should in cricket. He is not trying to illegally exit his crease. A skill of cricket is not acting. Going up and pretending to deliver the ball but holding it is not a skill associated with the game, so it should not be rewarded. If the bowler thinks the batsman is trying to gain an unfair advantage, warn him at the time, then all bets are off. Until then, he is given the benefit of the doubt.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
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.
Agree. In this instance though he actually was warned.
 

MrPrez

International Debutant
I didn't watch the particular match but was Kartik actually dummying the batsman? If the bowler is actively looking to find a case where the batsman is overstepping just to be a **** then obviously it's wrong, but if the batsman is obviously getting a headstart and the bowler notices this then I have no qualms with Mankading.
 

MrPrez

International Debutant
Screw the late post. I think I made my standpoint on when it is ok and when it isn't clear, though.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Yeah Uppercut, you obviously don't understand the spirit of cricket. Only possible reason for an independently thought out opinion.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I know, it's just as well benchy's around to tell me why I hold all of my opinions. Enlightening.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You obviously only think I'm wrong because you were dropped on your head as a child.

/benchy's debating technique
 
Last edited:

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You obviously only think I'm wrong because you were dropped on your head as a child.

/benchy's debating technique
Care to point out where I don't debate the point? If you get touchy about someone disagreeing with your point don't start the topic and do the above **** in the hope people will back you up. Rubbish post.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
BBC Sport - Somerset v Surrey: Murali Kartik causes run-out controversy

Murali Kartik getting in some hot water over this one.

I reckon it's absolutely fine. He's not just wandering out of his crease for a merry stroll, he's trying to gain a sporting advantage by backing up. Why on earth should the fielding team allow that?
Quite. Especially when he had been warned already.

Obviously there's a certain amount of bad feeling because it's Surrey, but Batty had absolutely nothing to apologise for afaics.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Care to point out where I don't debate the point? If you get touchy about someone disagreeing with your point don't start the topic and do the above **** in the hope people will back you up. Rubbish post.
Well, you did start the post with an unflattering theory of why I disagree with you.

Other than that I don't think you really engaged with what I said. It's not that the advantage gained by the batsman is "unfair", it's just that it's an advantage and I don't think it should be up to the fielding side's sense of fair play to determine precisely how much of an advantage it's okay to give to their opponents.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well, you did start the post with an unflattering theory of why I disagree with you.

Other than that I don't think you really engaged with what I said. It's not that the advantage gained by the batsman is "unfair", it's just that it's an advantage and I don't think it should be up to the fielding side's sense of fair play to determine precisely how much of an advantage it's okay to give to their opponents.
Which brings me to my first point: judging by your posts, I don't think you understand the practical elements associated with the spirit of cricket. I think anyone who has played the game would agree with me.

This isn't a personal attack, it's just the truth.
 
Last edited:

Top