Published: Jul 04, 2011, 12:00 PM (IST)
Edited: Aug 21, 2014, 07:39 PM (IST)
By Nishad Pai Vaidya
In Part One and Two we had a look at four interesting recommendations made the ICC Chief Executives Committee. The latest news is that the ICC’s Executive Board has ratified these recommendations and they will take effect from October 1 this year.
On this occasion we shall have a look at two more recommendations which in my opinion are the most interesting of the lot. The said recommendations are as follows:
1. The rule regarding Mankading to be reintroduced. Thus, if a batsman at the non-striker’s end is out of the crease while the bowler is in his run-up, the bowler is allowed to effect a run-out.
2. While running, if a batsman changes his course to come in the way of a throw of a fielder to prevent it from hitting the stumps, he can be ruled out “Obstructing the field”.
These changes are the most interesting because some of the liberties batsmen enjoy today may be taken away from them. As the rule regarding the “Mankading” was done away with for some time, batsman used it to their advantage as they would back up too far outside the crease even as the bowler is in his run-up. We have also seen how batsmen would get in the way of throws on purpose to protect their wickets.
Mankading
“Mankading” was allowed under the Laws of Cricket and came under the run-out category. However, this mode was later on done away with. The reintroduction of “Mankading” is a good move as it will help reduce instances of batsmen backing up by a huge margin to gain an unfair advantage as the bowler delivered the ball. We generally see such situations when a batsman is batting with the tail and is at the non-striker’s end and does everything to get back to the striker’s end. We also see this in limited-overs games where a batsman in good nick backs up too far at the non-striker’s end to reach the other end.
It would be interesting to see as to how many bowlers opt to “Mankad” the batsmen. A batsman has been “Mankaded” on only six occasions in international cricket, the most recent being Kapil Dev running out Peter Kirsten in 1992. Then there is also the occasion where Courtney Walsh refused to run out a batsman in this fashion during the 1987 Cricket World Cup. West Indies needed to win that game but Walsh didn’t resort to this practice.
No to unfair obstruction
Currently, batsmen are allowed to come in the way of the throw while running to prevent themselves from being run-out. All this will change from the October 1 as such offenders would be declared out obstructing the field if they change their course while running to come in between the throw and the stumps.
For better understanding, we must have a look at the Law regarding obstructing the field. Law 37 of the Laws of Cricket says that, “Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he willfully obstructs or distracts the fielding side by word or action. Furthermore, it shall be regarded as obstruction if while the ball is in play either batsman willfully, and without the consent of a fielder, strikes the ball with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, after the ball has been touched by a fielder. This shall apply whether or not there is any disadvantage to the fielding side.”
Adding a new dimension to this mode of dismissal is good as batsman try to come in the way of throws on occasions where the ball has been thrown to the wrong end. In such situations the batsman runs in line of the stumps or gets in the way of the throw deliberately when there are attempts to get the ball to the end where there is a possibility of a run out. The new rule only applies to situations where the batsmen “change their course” while running to get in the way of the throw.
These changes promise to bring about a new flavor into the game. It is an attempt by the ICC to end the monotony plaguing the game.
(Nishad Pai Vaidya, a 20-year-old law student, is a club and college-level cricketer. His teachers always complain, “He knows the stats and facts of cricket more than the subjects we teach him.”)
