Playing Fair v/s Spirit Of Cricket?

Just four months after India got its historic independence in 1947, India’s Vinoo Mankad created a history of a different sort when he ran out Aussie opener Bill Brown at the bowler’s end for backing up too far before the ball was delivered. The incident was the first of its kind in Cricket, and soon the type of dismissal was referred to as ‘Mankaded’. The ‘historicity’ of the incident could not be missed.



A newspaper report of where it all began
(Source: Wikipedia)



In 1992, South Africa was making a return to mainstream international cricket after the apartheid era led to the Proteas getting banned from cricket. India was playing South Africa in a series billed as the ‘Friendship Series’… till Kapil Dev removed the bails at the non-striker’s end after Peter Kirsten to spark off a round of debate on ‘Spirit of Cricket’. According to the Indian team (and judging by Kapil’s reaction in this video), Kirsten was already warned at least twice before Kapil decided to take what people call as an ‘extreme’ step to get somebody out. Friendship Series turned into an ugly spat when Kepler Wessels allegedly hit Kapil with his bat and Dave Callaghan using some choicest words. The irony of the incident could not be lost.

Yesterday, as yet another ‘mankading’ incident opened up this age old debate on Spirit of Cricket, couldn’t help but wondering who was actually following the ‘true spirit of cricket’? When Ashwin, rightfully, appealed against Sri Lanka’s Thirimanne after the latter ventured out for a stroll before the ball was delivered, surprisingly, umpires decided to enquire with the fielding skipper on whether he needs to withdraw the appeal. Sehwag obliged. Appeal was withdrawn. Batsman continued to bat, and also stroll out with no remorse or respect shown to a lawful appeal. If anyone, it was Thirimanne who was acting against the Spirit of Cricket.

As per the rule change (or re-change) implemented last year, a 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.’ Going by that, I’m not convinced how ‘spirit of Cricket’ is applicable if a non-striker, purely because of his own carelessness decides to back-up too far before the bowler releases the ball. If at all, Indians were silly to have withdrawn the appeal for a wrong-doing of a batsman, and more so, the umpires in asking the Indians to re-consider. Legally, that was out, just like a caught-behind or LBW. Imagine an umpire asking the fielding team to re-consider an appeal for a caught-behind, because the batsman chased a delivery that was too wide. A bowler doesn’t warn the batsman then either to not do that again! According to me, what is ‘more unfair’ is when a non-striker gets run out after a batsman hits a beautiful straight drive, which clips the bowler’s finger and hits the stump with the non-striker out of his ground, or when a runner bumps into a fielder/bowler and is run out because of that.

I remember watching this year’s Celebrity Cricket League (yes, I was watching CCL!) and the finals between Chennai and Karnataka had its moments. Two runs were needed of one delivery when the bowler decided to run the non-striker out before completing his delivery action. The ball, of course, wasn’t counted, but the wicket given! And because he did that, the legal delivery that he bowled yielded no run resulting in his team’s victory. The new batsman at the non-striker end couldn’t back-up before the ball was released and hence, couldn’t reach the striker’s end before the wicket-keeper threw the bails down. Yes, it may seem like a trivial cricket tournament, but there was a lesson to be learnt here. Follow the rules. Win it fair-and-square.

I remember a game which a team lost because the non-striker was almost half-way down the pitch by the time the ball reached the batsman, that he could easily come back for the second beating a throw that came from long-on. Wasn’t that unfair? I’m sure countless other moments have happened in the cricket field where a batting side got undue advantage (and even won games) because of the earlier rule, which allowed the runner to take off as soon as the bowler was in his delivery stride.

If it’s in the rule-book, I don’t see any reason why that should cause any disturbance to this ‘Spirit of Cricket’ that people drum-beat about so much. It is not ‘win at any cost’, it’s ‘win within the rules.’ Ironic it is, as one would think ‘breaking the rule’ goes against the ‘spirit’ of anything, and not following it!