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

[LongHopCassidy]

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'.

By running someone out from a decision that they may not have consciously elected to do?

 

[Red]

By running someone out from a decision that they may not have consciously elected to do?

They know.....I know when I'm backing up exactly where the bowler is etc.*

*could be construed as a pretty ghey comment!

 

[silentstriker]

By running someone out from a decision that they may not have consciously elected to do?

Next time, they'll consciously be careful.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

As far as I understand you're not allowed to mankad if your arm has already come over in the action, so if you still wander out of your crease early then you deserve it. "Oh but he tricked me" then pay attention, ****. It's professional sport.

 

[Dan]

I agree with Benchy.

If a batsman leaves a fraction early on a handful of occasions, you warn him - he may have the timing of his backing up wrong. Even if it appears willful, you warn them first IMO.

After warnings (preferably 2, IMO) the bowling side is well within their rights to run him out. It isn't unsporting in the slightest to do so.

Really small violations will quite often be accidental, however given Barrow was warned already, he either intended to do it or was being incredibly thick. The right decision was made in my mind - and this comes from a Somerset supporter.

 

[Red]

If a batsman leaves a fraction early on a handful of occasions, you warn him - he may have the timing of his backing up wrong. Even if it appears willful, you warn them first IMO.

I find this opinion odd. If a batsman mistimes his cover drive and gets caught in slip, he doesn't get a second chance. If a bowler mistimes his run up and the umpire calls no ball, he doesn't get a second chance without being penalised.

Why should batsmen who time their backing up wrong get a "warning". I mean, it's really not that hard, and the majority of times in cricket when I've seen guys backing up far enough to be run out by the bowler, they've blatantly been trying to gain ground, not inadvertently mistiming something.

Batsmen should stay in their crease if they don't want to get run out. If it appears wilful, just run the **** out!

 

[nexxus]

Just another thought, isn't this akin to a pitcher catching a batter trying to pinch ground when running between bases? Same thing in my book.

 

[nexxus]

Actually fairly amazing response on CI I think. There's not a single commenter saying that it was unsportsmanlike. Not. A. One.

It's not a statistical quorum by any means but that, and the status of the poll, does kind of poo-poo the notion in the article that it's generally considered poor form. Doesn't appear to be the case any more.

 

[nexxus]

I'd hope, if they removed it from the laws, they'd then also add that if the batsman left the crease early, the run would be counted short.

I think that'd set the cat amongst the pigeons, batsmen steal ground far more often than bowlers mankad them. You already cases where the non-striker is almost a quarter way down the pitch for the last ball of a limited overs game.

 

[Dan]

I think that'd set the cat amongst the pigeons, batsmen steal ground far more often than bowlers mankad them. You already cases where the non-striker is almost a quarter way down the pitch for the last ball of a limited overs game.

Backing up a long way =/= leaving early. From the back foot landing to the time a call can be made allows for a stride or two, especially if they started sprinting from well behind the crease.

I find this opinion odd. If a batsman mistimes his cover drive and gets caught in slip, he doesn't get a second chance. If a bowler mistimes his run up and the umpire calls no ball, he doesn't get a second chance without being penalised.

Why should batsmen who time their backing up wrong get a "warning". I mean, it's really not that hard, and the majority of times in cricket when I've seen guys backing up far enough to be run out by the bowler, they've blatantly been trying to gain ground, not inadvertently mistiming something.

Batsmen should stay in their crease if they don't want to get run out. If it appears wilful, just run the **** out!

They know.....I know when I'm backing up exactly where the bowler is etc.

Let's tackle these two together with a little scenario, because I need to practice some creative writing anyway.

You're playing in a club game, and for the past three overs bowled from the Pavillion End you've been stuck down at the non-striker's - your partner is struggling and can't buy a run. You, as a specialist batsman, are trying to help him out as much as possible, backing up well to try and get him off strike.

You've worked out a rhythm - when the bowler hits the edge of the square you know you can start to walk forwards from the stumps without leaving early, and you get quite a distance up the pitch by the time the shot is executed - completely legally.

But then, the bowler stutters slightly in his run - either he hit the wrong spot, caught his foot on something or whatever, but all of a sudden you've left your crease fractionally early, even though every other ball you've been fine and are intending to completely adhere to the laws of the game.

Do you deserve to be run out in that instance, assuming the bowler picks up on it and gets the ball onto the stumps (minor detail, I know ).

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

Wonderful words spoken in the voice of Tana Umaga.

Don't really know what other privileges batsmen want. Small boundaries, woodier bats, no mankads (unless the moral code is broken)..

 

[Valer]

Do you deserve to be run out in that instance, assuming the bowler picks up on it and gets the ball onto the stumps (minor detail, I know ).

Yes. Even with no warning. Watch the bowler if you have to.

 

[Uppercut]

I find this opinion odd. If a batsman mistimes his cover drive and gets caught in slip, he doesn't get a second chance. If a bowler mistimes his run up and the umpire calls no ball, he doesn't get a second chance without being penalised.

Why should batsmen who time their backing up wrong get a "warning". I mean, it's really not that hard, and the majority of times in cricket when I've seen guys backing up far enough to be run out by the bowler, they've blatantly been trying to gain ground, not inadvertently mistiming something.

Batsmen should stay in their crease if they don't want to get run out. If it appears wilful, just run the **** out!

Because no one really wants it to be a part of the game. It'd become farcical, it's not one of the skills cricket is supposed to measure.

My problem with it is that when it comes to tight scenarios (like the last ball of an ODI, for instance), batsmen just push the 'spirit' of their opposition as far as they possibly can. That's not to say the fielding side should just be constantly mankad'ing without warning- that would just ruin the game. But there's something not quite right about the way things are.

 

[Shri]

If the rules are in place it will just be like the free-hit for no-balls scenario. Batsmen will adapt and the issue will mostly solve itself.

 

[intcricket]

Murali Karthik warned him, which according to the law isn't even required. The batsman didn't listen. Deserved to get out for cheating.

Amazing how many instances of "spirit of cricket" violations come up in England. 1 and 2

 

[marc71178]

I'd hope, if they removed it from the laws, they'd then also add that if the batsman left the crease early, the run would be counted short.

I think that'd set the cat amongst the pigeons, batsmen steal ground far more often than bowlers mankad them. You already cases where the non-striker is almost a quarter way down the pitch for the last ball of a limited overs game.

How would the umpires police that on top of everything else though?

 

[kingkallis]

Young lad was warned so its absolutely fine. Kartik was right in showing him the way to the pavilion.

 

[SteveNZ]

Amazing response from the public, which I take it is pretty well reflected here.

For some reason G.Batty felt honour bound to apologise even though there's no one who holds anything against his actions. Interesting. Do players feel different? I know I never did, but I was a bowler.

 

[Trichromatic]

You've worked out a rhythm - when the bowler hits the edge of the square you know you can start to walk forwards from the stumps without leaving early, and you get quite a distance up the pitch by the time the shot is executed - completely legally.

But then, the bowler stutters slightly in his run - either he hit the wrong spot, caught his foot on something or whatever, but all of a sudden you've left your crease fractionally early, even though every other ball you've been fine and are intending to completely adhere to the laws of the game.

Do you deserve to be run out in that instance, assuming the bowler picks up on it and gets the ball onto the stumps (minor detail, I know ).

No, so it's better to set the timing in such a way that batsmen leave the crease only after the release of the ball, otherwise count it as short run. Will rules ask too much from batsmen then? I'm sure it's not difficult for players who are concentrating so much to ensure that they don't leave the crease early.

If run-out rule is against spirit then just remove it and change it short run in this case. After that you'll notice that somehow magically batsman won't make mistake.

If such dismissals are farce then is it fair that bowler doesn't get a wicket on a no-ball when he marginally oversteps?

 

[Dan]

No, so it's better to set the timing in such a way that batsmen leave the crease only after the release of the ball, otherwise count it as short run. Will rules ask too much from batsmen then? I'm sure it's not difficult for players who are concentrating so much to ensure that they don't leave the crease early.

If run-out rule is against spirit then just remove it and change it short run in this case. After that you'll notice that somehow magically batsman won't make mistake.

If such dismissals are farce then is it fair that bowler doesn't get a wicket on a no-ball when he marginally oversteps?

Best of luck getting umpires to monitor that. They'll have to watch the release as well as the front foot and the bat - then somehow adjudicate the actual action as well.

I highly doubt lessening the penalty if the batsman is discovered would magically keep them glued to the crease for that much longer.