×

Mankading controversy: Time to put the ‘Spirit of Cricket’ debate to rest

There has been enough of a debate with regard to the 'Spirit of Cricket.' If Mankading is within the 'Laws of Cricket' then that should be enough.

Related articles

Kapil Dev (left) Mankaded Peter Kirsten after warning him three times. Photo courtesy: YouTube screengrab
Kapil Dev (right) Mankaded Peter Kirsten (left) after warning him three times; how many warnings do you need? Photo courtesy: YouTube screengrab

When a batsman edges to the wicketkeeper and does not walk, the question of ‘Spirit of Cricket’ almost always comes up. When Andrew Symonds did not walk during the Sydney Test of 2008, the resulting bad blood nearly ended India’s tour of Australia early. Stuart Broad was lambasted by all and sundry for not walking during The Ashes 2013, and was labelled a cheat by the Australian crowds. By that same token, Adam Gilchrist was held up as a hero for walking in the ICC Cricket World Cup 2003 semi-final against Sri Lanka. READ: Did Mankading rob Zimbabwe an entry to ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup 2016

The question is did either Symonds or Broad break any rules by not walking? The answer, for better or worse, is no. And yet, a batsman edging and not walking is considered against the ‘Spirit of Cricket.’ However, an if umpire wrongly declares a batsman out LBW or does not uphold a correct “caught behind” appeal, the aggrieved parties are not even allowed to express their displeasure lest the match referee fine them. No one thinks of the ‘Spirit of Cricket’ in this scenario. READ: Five instances of Mankading in Test cricket

MS Dhoni called back Ian Bell during a Test in 2011 after the batsman unwisely left his crease thinking it was tea while the ball was still in play, and was praised for playing in the ‘Spirit of Cricket.’ It was clearly Bell’s fault for not paying attention, but he was not penalised for it. On the other hand, Muttiah Muralitharan was run out by Brendon McCullum in a Test in 2006 after leaving the crease to congratulate Kumar Sangakkara on a century while the ball was still in play. The umpire declared him out instantaneously and that was that. The move received its share of criticism but there was no denying that New Zealand were well within the laws of the game. READ: MCC refuses to change Mankading law

This brings us to Mankading, which is perhaps the most controversial of the lot. And yet, when you think about it, it is the most straightforward as well. If the batsman at the non-striker’s end stays in his crease he can never be Mankaded. If he leaves his crease, he needs to cover that much less distance while taking a run. We have seen numerous instances where a mere fraction of a second has been the difference between a batsman being run out or surviving. By leaving the crease early the batsman is giving himself the advantage; by that token the bowler should be able to get an advantage as well, in this case by getting the offending batsman run out. READ: Instances of ‘Mankading’ in cricket

Mankading is well within the laws of the game. Most bowlers will even give a warning prior to Mankading the batsman, but they do not need to do even that. Ian Bishop summed it up best when he said, after the controversial conclusion to the ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup 2016 match between West Indies and Zimbabwe, “I think it has to come to the point where the batsman cannot aimlessly wander out of their crease. The real test of running is leaving your crease at the right time and completing your run at the right time. It’s the law.”

There has been enough of a debate with regard to the ‘Spirit of Cricket.’ If it is within the ‘Laws of Cricket’ then that should be enough.

(Shiamak Unwalla, a reporter with CricketCountry, is a self-confessed Sci-Fi geek who loves cricket more than cricketers. His Twitter handle is @ShiamakUnwalla)

trending this week