The Spirit of Cricket, rules and a whole Pandora's box

Ahoy there, Spirit of Cricket! It seems like you've made an appearance again and have become the topic of popular discourse. We can't keep you out for long now, can we?

So we're back in this discourse again after Deepti Sharma ran Charlie Dean out for backing up too far. Ah, the vague line between the laws of cricket and the Spirit of Cricket. Except, is it really vague?

You'd have to say it's a clear no when the rules are firmly in place. It stipulates that this mode of dismissal (no, we don't use the M word here) is perfectly legal. And it's not for you or me to decide if it's legal or not - the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), the entity in charge of the laws of the sport, deems it so. Ideally, the matter ends there. But of course, this mode of dismissal, as it has over time, continues to evoke debate and has opened up a whole Pandora's box.

The MCC, in a statement released on Sunday, had this to say:

"Cricket is a broad church and the spirit by which it is played is no different. As custodians of the Spirit of Cricket, MCC appreciates its application is interpreted differently across the globe."

They also added:

"Respectful debate is healthy and should continue, as where one person sees the bowler as breaching the Spirit in such examples, another will point at the non-striker gaining an unfair advantage by leaving their ground early."

The most important statement was the one that followed:

"MCC's message to non-strikers continues to be to remain in their ground until they have seen the ball leave the bowler's hand. Then dismissals, such as the one seen yesterday, cannot happen."

It's a rule as clear as daylight

There are quite a few intriguing takeaways from this statement by the MCC. Firstly, the fact that the 'Spirit of Cricket' is a broad ocean. Public discourse is enough to sum up how it means different things to different stakeholders, be it the players or the fans.

Secondly, there is room for respectful debate. Undeniable. But with some stakeholders taking what comes across as a moral high ground on a rule that doesn't sit well with them, it adds a thick layer of subjectivity to the whole matter. And that often doesn't lead to a full stop.

The most important takeaway, though, is the reiteration towards batters standing their ground until the ball is released. In essence, a reiteration that the rule is legal and valid. Surely then, the question of whether it was played in the right spirit ought to go up in smoke?

Fair and unfair play

Laws 41 and 42 of the Laws of Cricket stipulated by the MCC detail what comes under the grounds of unfair play and the conduct of the players. A sub-section of Law 41 delves into this particular mode of dismissal that has, not for the first time, got social media's unofficial plaintiffs and defendants training their guns on the other.

It's worth mentioning one word that is often brought up during this debate - 'warning'. A read into the laws on the MCC's website will tell you that the last usage of the words 'warn' or 'warning' under Law 41 comes before sub-section 41.16, which talks about the batter leaving his/her crease early.

This, in essence, negates the need for issuing a warning to the batter for wandering out of his/her crease before the ball has been bowled. Deepti stated that she gave Dean several warnings but there was no need for it in any case since the law doesn't state so.

It is important to address another issue - the fact that this dismissal was deemed a poor way to end a cricket match. Is it to say that had this been the fourth or fifth wicket, the dismissal would have been accepted by all and sundry? Conjecture again!

Cast your mind back to 2019 when Ravichandran Ashwin ran Jos Buttler out in an IPL fixture. Buttler was the second Rajasthan Royals wicket to fall and the game went on for a good 7.1 overs post that. Do we need to ask if that didn't ignite the debate over the Spirit of Cricket, though?

The Spirit of Cricket is sacred, but so are the rules

The most basic element of the 'play hard, play fair' factor is to follow the rules and not violate them. A cricket match is blessed with three umpires and a match referee to ensure the contest conforms with this - exactly why Deepti catching Dean short of her ground was referred to the TV umpire.

Make no mistake, it is important to play the sport in the right spirit. The stakeholders of cricket pride themselves on this notion and rightfully so. Following the rules stated by the governing body doesn't amount to a violation of this spirit. It is as simple as that.

It is also worth noting that not every rule is foolproof. A case in point here being that the batting side are not awarded a run even when an lbw decision is overturned. It is surely the wiser option to bring the issue of a chink in the law with the makers of the rule, rather than chastising the player with questions of fair play and cheating, isn't it?

The laws are absolute and in place - for both the mode of dismissal in question, as well as what constitutes unfair conduct. The first of them has remained and will continue to remain under scrutiny going by the reception in the aftermath of Saturday's game.

The bottom line remains that the Spirit of Cricket has room for a logical debate only when the rules are violated blatantly. In other cases, it must be kept aside to avoid digressing from what remains a recognized mode of dismissal, which, in an eerie coincidence, was last observed at the headquarters of the governing body.

The Spirit of Cricket is sacred, but so are the rules that define the game. A conflict between the two is a sureshot recipe for a conundrum that ideally ought not to exist. Acceptance of the same is the first step towards destigmatizing the conjecture around this form of the run out. And the moment that happens, there will be more room for objectivity in reading this beloved game of ours.