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

[Trichromatic]

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.

Give it to third umpire. It's not lessening the penalty. Current rules and spirit of cricket allows batsman to take risk and he knows that it's pretty safe as he will get away 3-4 times. Even after that bowler will think about doing so. But with short run they won't risk to lose a run every time.

At least then we can say that it's not unfair or extra advantage for anyone. Bowler don't get easy wickets (though it is not used as easy wicket anyway) and batsmen don't get easy run.

 

[doesitmatter]

i see a thread about "islamaphobic" abuse from the English crowd and the same crowd talks about spirit..wow

 

[Furball]

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.

I would defend the bowler if the batsman was at it. If you don't want to be run out, stay in your crease.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

Once the bowler enters his delivery stride such a run out cannot be effected.

If a batsman is leaving his ground before the bowler enters his delivery stride how about the batsman breaking the spirit of the game?

Any warning is merely aa curtesy, if the bowler is 'unsporting' I would argue equally that the batsman is cheating.

Actually, an umpire is empowered to call 'dead ball' and cancel any runs if they consider the batsman of taking an unfair advantage.

In a game I umpired a few week ago a spin bowler, who had pulled a hamstring whillst batting was walking up to bowl (his side was short of bowling and needed him, he couldn't even jog up).

One batsman had great trouble timing his backing up because of this and the bowler threatened to run him out. My colleague (I was at the strikers end) pointed at the batsman and said "YOU can't do that" and then the bowler and said "and YOU can't do that".

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Yeah I agree with this. If a warning is given then fine.

It's not something the bowler will become fixated on anyway, unless it's blatantly obvious, as focusing on what the non-striker is doing will make it hard for them to keep their mind on just bowling well. I think the original poll is a bit black and white about the issue. There's more involved, and a variety of scenarios. It's never been illegal to back up as a bowler hits their delivery stride, and this anticipation is part of the game. Blatantly taking the piss and being warned, followed by being mankadded, doesn't deserve a lot of sympathy.

 

[silentstriker]

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.





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 ).

Let's say it's late in the game and you need to score at a very rapid pace to win before time runs out. A spinner is on and if the length is right, you are coming out of your wicket. You think you've gotten the bowlers action down and are predicting exactly when the ball will be the appropriate length so you can come down the track. The bowler bowls with the same action, or so you think, but this time he's made an imperceptible change, or the ball hits a crack and spins or bounces more, so you end up missing it and get stumped. Do you deserve it?

 

[zaremba]

i see a thread about "islamaphobic" abuse from the English crowd and the same crowd talks about spirit..wow

"The same crowd"? Really? You reckon that any of the individuals who were accused of islamophobic abuse have had anything to say in the current debate about Mankading and the "spirit of game"? Or do you just choose to lump all the English together as "the same crowd"? Very cheap shot.

If you want to play that facile game, it's pretty easy to make any nation look like hypocrites. I mean, look at those bloody Norwegians, they commit mass murder and then the same crowd imprisons people when they commit mass murder! Hypocrites! ...wow.

 

[doesitmatter]

wowzaa...so you do agree that because of one or 2 ****heads who blow themselves up you don't blame the whole community..Next time i read about "Islamaphobia" i will keep the word "Hypocrites" in mind..

 

[uvelocity]

hey ****s

one other thing, when a batsman is backing up massively, he invariably gets himself into trouble anyway, though a run out at his end through luck or quick reflexes, or can cause confusion and run his mate out going for a single which is only there for the guy half way down the pitch. so even as the fielding team it's not always a bad idea to let them do what they want anyway

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Still easier just to mankad the **** out of him.

 

[uvelocity]

yeah but that makes you a ****

 

[Red]

wowzaa...so you do agree that because of one or 2 ****heads who blow themselves up you don't blame the whole community..Next time i read about "Islamaphobia" i will keep the word "Hypocrites" in mind..

There are dickheads and extremists in every culture.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

yeah but that makes you a ****

Care to explain?

 

[ankitj]

It's one of those things where your opinion is coloured by whether you like the team that did it or that was affected by it. Actually that's the deal with anything to do with gamesmanship in general.

 

[uvelocity]

Care to explain?

mankadding makes you a ****

its just the way it is

 

[silentstriker]

What about appealing when someone hits a ball hard, the bowler tries to field a shot, but it goes through his fingers and it hits the stumps and the non striker is run out? Is that OK?

 

[uvelocity]

thats bewdiful

 

[uvelocity]

often hurts though, and doesn't count to your figures, so it's bittersweet

 

[Trichromatic]

What about appealing when someone hits a ball hard, the bowler tries to field a shot, but it goes through his fingers and it hits the stumps and the non striker is run out? Is that OK?

Bracewell?

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.

I wonder if 'Bracewell-run-out' is the skill cricket is supposed to measure.

 

[Senile Sentry]

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.

Yeah the captain's been a bit of softcock here and sold Kartik down the river.