The latest controversy to hit cricket is the vexed question of bowlers running out non-striking batters.
In the final ODI at Lord’s, with a close finish in prospect, India’s Deepti Sharma ran out Charlie Dean by stopping in her bowling action and removing the bails whilst the batter was out of her ground.
This has been met with furore, with diametrically opposed views on twitter (no surprise) with lots of players weighing in and the matter apparently being escalated by accusations of lying about the facts surrounding the incident.
Let’s take a look at the laws of cricket and the facts, and it will become clear why this is such a cloudy, controversial area.
The Laws of Cricket, as promulgated and amended by the MCC over the last few centuries, govern the game of cricket generally from test match to village green. The preamble to the Laws says:
Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket. The major responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the captains, but extends to all players, match officials and, especially in junior cricket, teachers, coaches and parents.
Respect is central to the Spirit of Cricket.
Respect your captain, team-mates, opponents and the authority of the umpires.
Play hard and play fair.
Accept the umpire’s decision.
Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise.
Show self-discipline, even when things go against you.
Congratulate the opposition on their successes, and enjoy those of your own team.
Thank the officials and your opposition at the end of the match, whatever the result.
Cricket is an exciting game that encourages leadership, friendship and teamwork, which brings together people from different nationalities, cultures and religions, especially when played within the Spirit of Cricket.
A lofty and many would say admirable statement. But a bit like the US Constitution, many argue it is vague, archaic, from a bygone age when only white colonial gentlemen had any rights or influence and that it should be interpreted by reference to its relevance to cricket today which features all genders, races, abilities and, at the top level, is a serious, commercial enterprise.
And herein lies the rub. Interpretation as to what is the spirit of cricket is very subjective. Ask a bowler and they will ask why is it against the spirit of cricket to execute a bowler’s runout and yet it is OK for a batsman to stand their ground when they know they have hit the ball and been caught. Ask a batsman and you may get a totally different answer. Does the spirit of cricket become a more important concept or a less important concept the more critical the stage of the match or the higher the status of the match?
Take a number of examples. Adam Gilchrist in a world cup semi-final walked when he got a nick on the ball which the umpire had not heard. An amazing sporting act, lauded by many, but apparently he was castigated by his team mates. Where does the spirit of cricket lie here?
A batter and bowler accidentally collide and both end up on the floor mid pitch. In a game drifting nowhere, it is easy to be magnanimous and not run the batter out. What if the scores were tied?
This amorphous, almost metaphysical, concept of the spirit of cricket creates, in its interpretation, conflict, argument and down right petty nastiness which can even be discriminatory, all of which is certainly “just not cricket”.
And this is even before we consider that the spirit of cricket concept conflicts with specific laws - and specific laws themselves can, as between themselves, even be argued to be contradictory.
Take the Deepti Sharma/Charlie Dean run out. The history of this type of dismissal is shrouded in “spirit” of cricket arguments, where the tradition was always for a bowler to warn a non-striking batter about being out of their ground before considering a runout, and many not even contemplating this as a mode of dismissal in any event.
If you take a look at the laws of cricket as these have developed, they say nothing of warnings (the England women’s captain says India are lying about giving warnings in the game, the Indians say they did give warnings). The warning conflict between the teams arises from going back to the “spirit of cricket”.
Surely the answer here is to make the Laws absolutely clear. The spirit of cricket is fine and laudable as a general concept but for a mode of dismissal it surely must be that the Laws must be made fit for purpose and clear so that the unsavoury disputes which are about, but not in, the spirit of cricket are reduced. Cricket is a game of nuance which is part of its charm, but here the laws themselves have been shown to be conflicting and unworkable.
Looking at the relevant laws in turn (which have been modified over the years but now are as follows):
Now in the runout section of the laws (not the unfair play section):
If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.
So the Laws specifically permit a bowler runout. No warning needed. Two big issues arise here in terms of both clarity and “fairness”. Commentators and cricketers a like believe the words in bold are not clear enough and are not easy to police. Take the Charlie Dean incident. When did Sharma stop in her action? Who is that has to expect the ball to have been delivered? Charlie Dean the batter in that instance seemed to think so as she started to come out of her ground. Who knows? More tellingly, the umpire was starting to signal dead ball which suggest he seemed to have believed that he was at a point he expected the ball to be delivered, and yet it wasn’t.
I think this could have been an end to the incident. The umpire could have legitimately thought the bowler had gone passed the normal point of delivery, called dead ball and therefore there could be no runout. If this had been the decision, would India have had the right to DRS to review this? The subjectivity required in interpretation here calls for the Law to be amended.
The second issue is that this law arguably cuts across other Laws which sit in the unfair play section of the Laws:
It is unfair for any fielder wilfully to attempt, by word or action, to distract, deceive or obstruct either batter after the striker has received the ball.
This law is usually considered when a fielder fake fields a ball to try and stop a batter running. The anti-bowler runout camp would argue that the very act of the bowler (who is also a fielder) runout contradicts this element of unfair play. The converse argument is that the bowler runout is a clear exception ie it is just a normal run out in the runout section of the Laws and is not unfair play.
Whatever the views on this, the issue has created such a dichotomy of views that further clarification is needed.
For what it is worth, my view is, given the issues and subjectivity of this and the ill feeling it creates (and I have had to administer the rule umpiring league cricket), I think this mode of dismissal should be outlawed completely. Players then know where they stand and bad feeling in this area is reduced. One act like this can sour feelings on the pitch. Trust me, insinuations of cheating on a cricket pitch is the ultimate no-no.
But what about batters gaining an unfair advantage by stealing ground as the bowler runs up? The laws already cater for this as an aspect of unfair play:
It is unfair for the batters to attempt to steal a run during the bowler’s run-up……The bowler’s end umpire shall then…..award 5 Penalty runs to the fielding side.
This law is rarely use in practice. I would suggest it should be and should be beefed up. Perhaps a 1st and final warning of a level 1 offence, then the next time 5 penalty runs and the batter reported for a discipline breach. Then, if anyone on the team does it again, a further level 1 and 5 penalty runs, escalating up to a level 3 if necessary where the batter is removed from the game for 20% of the overs. If umpires start to use 5 penalty runs I would suspect batters will suddenly take more care.
The MCC have issued a statement saying the dismissal was perfectly legitimate. The escalation of the argument between the teams (perhaps media generated) might lead the MCC to consider this further. Watch this space.
