Spirit of the game, did you say? Stop trolling Deepa Sharma!

Raju Korti
A lot of bile is being let loose on the manner in which Indian woman cricketer Deepti Sharma ran England player Charlie Dean out yesterday. Self appointed custodians of the game are indignant that the Indian bowler took to a very "ungamely recourse" of running the rival batsman (batswoman if you like) out when Charlie had set off for a run and was well out of her crease. In other words, the player was "Mankaded" after that infamous episode when Vinoo Mankad ran Aussie Bill Brown out in the 1947-48 Sydney Test.

Mankad was at the receiving end of commentators and players for getting the batsman out this way as it was considered against the "spirit of the game". For the record, although the Mankad episode raised a lot of dust, that was not the first of such instances. More than a century before in 1835, George Baigent of Sussex was run out by Thomas Barker in a county match. Considering the stakes involved in both these cases, Mankad took more flak than Barker. Since then, there have been instances, far and few between of batsmen getting out this way and each time, it kicks up a row if that is strictly in the spirit of the game. Indian fans would particularly recall Ravichandran Ashwin doing it to Jos Butler of England during an IPL match.

This kind of run-out in now part of the Laws of Cricket. The unspoken rule is the bowler or team should warn a player first before attempting this attempt. The warning can be given verbally or the bowler can perform the run out before withdrawing the appeal. Such dismissals get controversial when no warning is given and often involve umpires in an animated discussions between themselves and the captain of the bowling side to confirm if the latter wishes to continue with the appeal. This even though these dismissals are easy to adjudicate.      

Now consider at this: The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), custodians of the Laws, has tweaked the Mankad episode and changed its wording over the years. The 2017 code said, "Bowler attempting to run out the non-striker before delivery" was replaced with "non-striker leaving the ground early". That clearly put the onus on the 'non-striker" to remain in their ground. Two years later, rephrased it slightly saying "the bowler is permitted to run [the non-striker] out" with "the non-striker is liable to be run out". Previously, the bowler was only permitted to run out a non-striker backing up before entering his delivery stride. It meant that as the bowler's back foot landed, the non-striker could move down the wicket a considerable way before the bowler actully delivered the ball. The ICC Match Officials  in their interpretation considered this "unfair". The new playing condition permitted the bowler to run the batsman out "any point before he releases the ball provided he has not completed his delivery swing. To cut the long story short, "Mankading" is nowe a thoroughly fair and legal act. It was endorsed by even Don Bradman who was skippering the Australian team in 1947.

It is generally accepted and believed that Cricket is a game that is by and large batsmen-centric. That includes even the average spectator who shells out money only to see the bowlers flogged all over the park. The argument against "Mankading" -- now perfectly licit -- that it is against the spirit of the game and unfair on the batsmen, holds little water. Admittedly, that might not be a very exemplary way of getting a batsman out and may not make a bowler feel proud but then it is not just a bowler versus a batsman but one country pitted against another in times when the stakes are very high. All arguments against "Mankading" should be given a decent burial now that is made a rule. The basic question is if it is not in the spirit of the game, why is it a rule in the first place phrased and rephrased in its present avtaar?

My first encounter with such a dismissal was in my school days in late 1960s  when our all rounder skipper got a rival batsman out. In fact, we all were thriled with it not because it got one of their best batters out but for the sharp presence of mind shown by the bowler. It was not as if people were naive or ill-informed but there was not a murmur of protest. Sometime in the mid-90s, I clearly remember watching Courtney Walsh stopping just short of delivering the ball to look askance at the batsman who had run far from the crease. Don't recall who was the batsman but I do recollect the sheepish smile on his face on getting a reprieve. My contention is if batsmen feel so upset at getting out this way, they should be careful before the set off for a run.

Rules, for whatever they are worth, should always be consistent. Those who believe that batsmen who set out of their crease when the bowler begins his run up should be considered from the point of view of gamesmanship should show similar consideration towards the bowler. The rule in that case is equally harsh on a  bowler when he oversteps even a inch. Our learned commentators never fail to mention ad nauseum that the umpires are very strict on the no ball and bowling down the leg side. Consideration for the batsman and strict for the bowler? What is the spirit of the game here? There can be no margin of error here or leniency shown on how much leeway a batsman or bowler should be shown when they transgress.

It is conveniently forgotten that batsmen often set out of their crease far enough and that puts them at an advantage when they are stealing runs, especially in the shorter and competitive matches. Isn't following rules not in the spirit of the game? Or is it some kind of a dichotomy that what is a rule is not necessarily in the spirit of the game? By that logic, people will complain that the wicket-keeper should warn the batsman before stumping him. In such cases, even a fraction of a second can turn the match on its head. Rules have to supercede the spirit and if they are inconsistent with each other, they should be suitably tweaked to be fair on both the teams and its players.

The lament against "Mankading" and the argument for "better ways of getting a batsman out" is mainly because the batsmen feel stupid getting out that way. It is a price they must pay for their indiscretion just as a bowler pays for his by overstepping. In the absence of such a strict rule, batsmen will find a specious excuse to step out half way down the pitch and will resent being "Mankaded." The spirit of the game is always in favour of the batting side.

This is, of course, not to run down gamesmanship. The spirit certainly counts when it comes to honest conduct on the field including that by the two gentlemen in Black and White. Now that the rule is in place after due thought, a batsman "Mankaded", howsoever it rankles, should walk back to the pavilion gracefully. That will be in the true spirit of the game. Not by cursing under the breath and banging his bat on the ground as show of anger and frustration.

PS: Just check out the picture and see how far Charlie Dean had stepped out of her crease. Deepa Sharma could have had a few sips of tea and still run her out. If that is unfair, Dean should have been allowed to run to the striker's end and come back to her crease laughing all the way. In the true spirit of the game!