Mankading and spirit of cricket

Sachithra Senanayake

Mankading - the act of a bowler running out a non-striker batsman before bowling a ball has always been a source of needless controversy.

In fact, for some weird reason, it has become a test of the sportsman spirit of a bowler who does not do the Mankad. Courtney Walsh has received a medal for not running out Salim Yousuf. But if the bowler does Mankad, like Sachithra Senanayake did to Jos Buttler, all hell breaks lose: the bowler and the fielding captain are accused of having destroyed the spirit of cricket, the greatest crime imaginable in the gentlemans' game.

Well, here are my two cents on Mankading.

It is within the laws of the game. In fact, there is a specific law for the situation; hence, no ambiguity is possible. Law 42(15) states - "The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is succesful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. If the bowler fails to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible".

So, if there exists a specific law that states the consequences of a bowler breaking the stumps with the non-striker outside his crease, then why the hue and cry? The spirit of cricket has already been murdered many a time (fixing, corruption, walking/not walking, etc.) by different sets of players, officials and administrators. I guess that is why it exists in spirit form.

Here, the batsman was wandering outside the crease, and, with run-out decisions sometimes becoming a matter of TV frames, it does look like an advantage for the non-striker to back up as far ahead as possible. In this case, Buttler had been warned twice by Senanayake in his previous over, which is where the matter of cricket's spirit should rest but seemingly is not the case. And when Buttler was caught out of his crease again, he was run out: a result very rightly deserved.

So, Buttler should have nothing to complain about. I don't see any justifications for the hue and cry it has raised; nor do I see why the batsman is being portrayed as a victim when it’s his own actions that are to be blamed for his fate.

To me, it’s clear: Senanayake and the rest were well within their rights to run out Buttler, and no harm was caused to the so called spirit of the game.

Closing notes - a couple of interesting exhibits on Mankading.

Exhibit A - The original report on Mankading

Exhibit B - Chris Gayle showing the spirit of game. The dancing, though, might not be agreeable to the believers in the gentlemen's game.

Now it is up to the International Cricket Council to either (a) tinker with the laws, which they love to do a lot, or (b) tell the players that Mankading does no harm to the spirit of cricket.