Should India have withdrawn their appeal against Thirimanne?

[silentstriker]

In case you don't know - he was mankaded by Ashwin but Sehwag withdrew the appeal based on the 'spirit'. I don't understand how running someone out who is out of their crease is against the spirit of the game, but that's just me.

 

[benchmark00]

Etiquette dictates a warning, so I'm happy with Sehwag.

Same thing with running when a throw at the stumps hits the batsmen. Not against the rules as such...

 

[silentstriker]

Apparently he was warned before: http://www.espncricinfo.com/commonwealth-bank-series-2012/content/current/story/554756.html

 

[benchmark00]

Well I didn't see the incident. If he was warned and did it again then personally I wouldn't have withdrawn the appeal.

 

[Fusion]

I know this is going to sound all douchy, but I wouldn’t even bother with the warning. The batsman is gaining an unfair advantage for his team! It’s your job to prevent him from gaining that advantage. You aren’t breaking the rules, so there is nothing unethical in it either.

 

[nexxus]

I know this is going to sound all douchy, but I wouldn’t even bother with the warning. The batsman is gaining an unfair advantage for his team! It’s your job to prevent him from gaining that advantage. You aren’t breaking the rules, so there is nothing unethical in it either.

I don't understand why it would be considered douche-y at all, in fact the spirit of cricket advocates are the douche-y ones for peeing all over the law specifically written to handle the situation. There's no spirit of baseball unwritten rule that says the baseman needs to warn the runner that he's not on base. Ping, yerrrr out. End of.

When the ball hits the batsman on the pad, does the spirit dictate that the fielding team warn him against blocking the stumps?

Also think the Umpires were bang out of line pressuring Sehwag into withdrawing the appeal.

Surely if the fielding team are required to give a warning, the batting side should be graceful enough to ask that the run be discounted because the non-striker was backing up too far down the pitch and thus gained an unfair advantage? What's that? Not in 100 billion years? Oh.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The Nine comms were mentioning it repeadtedly before he was(n't) run out; Healy said Thirimanne was having a "brain fade".

Bloke was blatantly taking the Mickey Bliss, IMHO. I saw Vinay break his stride to warn him when he was practically on the striker's toes before the bowler had entered his delivery stride. Vinay followed it up with a waist-high full toss so I think the possibility of a Mankad was playing on his mind too.

Left for work before the Mankading incident, but I reckon Sehwag was probably being slightly soft of ****.

 

[SteveNZ]

I know this is going to sound all douchy, but I wouldn’t even bother with the warning. The batsman is gaining an unfair advantage for his team! It’s your job to prevent him from gaining that advantage. You aren’t breaking the rules, so there is nothing unethical in it either.

Sounds like gospel rather than douchy to me.

The stigma surrounding Mankads is antequated. It was not a done thing a while ago but batsmen are taking liberties with backing up and the rule has even been changed to allow them to do so. For mine, if they want to take the piddle with it then they will deservedly be run out. Batsmen have too many advantages without being able to steal another metre.

 

[Burgey]

Doesn't the tradition of warming for a bowler's end run out stem from the idea a batsman couldn't know precisely when a bowler is about to let the ball go, so you gave a warning a bloke the benefit of the doubt?

In this case they'd already warned him. Should have let the appeal stand IMO.

 

[Burgey]

Also, the Mankad was the only variation used by Ashwin which had actually taken a wicket this summer. Bit harsh to take it off him.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah, if they'd warned him before they should have withstood the appeal. Bit of obliviousness from the batsmen.

 

[Jono]

It pisses me off that they withdrew the appeal. They warned the ****er and he kept doing it. It is not against the spirit of the game to run someone out.

 

[four_or_six]

Weird that they withdrew it... especially in such an innocuous match. I could understand it more if it was, say, the first bilateral India-Pakistan series in n years and there'd already been some controversy. Then it may make sense to be more reticent.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Don't see any reason why they should have withdrawn the appeal tbh. Thirimanne was clearly doing it to gain an advantage, which I'm fine with as well. If he wants to take the risk to gain an extra metre then that's fine, he just has to accept it if he gets run out. It's not all that different from the striker coming down the track to a spinner - he's attempting to gain an advantage by being closer to the ball/getting to it on the full and is aware that he may be dismissed in doing so but does it anyway because it's worth the risk. Surely if a batsman can analyse line and length etc in milliseconds then the non striker can work out when it's safe to leave his crease and still back up a long way.

 

[Crazy Sam]

I think when warning the bowler they should also make sure the umpires are aware of the warning - that way the umpires are more inclined to give it out straight away as they knew the batsman was aware of it.

 

[zaremba]

Quite happy with the consensus that's developed here. I've never been quite sure of why non-strikers have always been treated so indulgently in this regard. I suppose I have no huge objection to the convention of giving a warning, anomalous though that may be; but if you've been given a warning and you ignore it then you obviously deserve what you get.

I wouldn't mind seeing a few more bowlers giving warnings because it would stop non-strikers habitually trying to steal a couple of extra yards on the assumption that they'll always get away with it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I think everyone is missing the entire point of this - and I can't believe no one else has argued this perspective yet - this was, in my book, NOT OUT regardless as Ashwin's back foot had landed in his delivery stride. Law 42.15 is very clear in that running-out of the non-striker is only possible before the bowler has entered his delivery stride, which is equally clearly defined in Appendix D as beginning when the back foot lands.

You can only run someone out by running straight through and knocking the bails off without breaking your stride - this is why, as a non-striker, you can take so many liberties with your backing-up, particularly when seamers are bowling.

http://www.umpires.tv/eLearning/text_version/Law_42.15.pdf

 

[Jono]

I think everyone is missing the entire point of this - and I can't believe no one else has argued this perspective yet - this was, in my book, NOT OUT regardless as Ashwin's back foot had landed in his delivery stride. Law 42.15 is very clear in that running-out of the non-striker is only possible before the bowler has entered his delivery stride, which is equally clearly defined in Appendix D as beginning when the back foot lands.

You can only run someone out by running straight through and knocking the bails off without breaking your stride - this is why, as a non-striker, you can take so many liberties with your backing-up, particularly when seamers are bowling.

http://www.umpires.tv/eLearning/text_version/Law_42.15.pdf

Point of this? Even if you are right, the point of the thread is whether they should have withdrawn the appeal, not whether it was actually out. It never got to the stage of the 3rd umpire giving it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I've also just discovered a law revision dated October 2011 that only applies to the International game - “The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible.”

This means a number of things: (i) definitely OUT, (ii) recreational cricket is being played under significantly different rules to the International game, (iii) Thirimanne is an idiot for standing outside the crease and (iv) Sehwag is a bigger idiot for letting him get away with it.

 

[Jono]

Its not a law revision I believe. Just a "playing condition" change, like the runner rule.