What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

8th ODI: India v Sri Lanka at Brisbane Feb 21, 2012

Hallatia

Referee
Messages
26,433
Almost a mankad!
interesting this. Whilst I am not the biggest fan of "the spirit of cricket", I am thoroughly opposed to the mankad. Someone actually did it to one of our girls the other week in first grade and it is so uncool and cheap, I don't think it should be in the rules. I think less of anyone who tries it.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
154,198
It has to be in the rules otherwise where do you draw the line. You cant have batsmen waiting halfway mid pitch for the bowler to bowl.
 

hineyrulz

Post Whore
Messages
154,886
The batsman was repeatedly warned, kept doing it so Ashwin went the mankad. India turned down the appeal and he continued to do it. Running two metres down the pitch before each ball us bowled is against the spirit of the game as well.
 

MSIH

Bench
Messages
3,807
The batsman was repeatedly warned, kept doing it so Ashwin went the mankad. India turned down the appeal and he continued to do it. Running two metres down the pitch before each ball us bowled is against the spirit of the game as well.

Exactly.
 

Patorick

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,997
http://www.espncricinfo.com/commonwealth-bank-series-2012/content/current/story/554716.html

India let Thirimanne off the hook

Ashwin had appealed, Thirimanne was not inside his crease, the finger should have gone up immediately. Spirit of cricket should not have been allowed to come in the way of fair cricket

Sidharth Monga at the Gabba

February 21, 2012

In the 40th over of the Sri Lankan innings at the Gabba, R Ashwin spotted the non-striker Lahiru Thirimanne was about three feet outside the crease even as his back foot was about to land. Ashwin didn't go through with his delivery, turned around, ran Thirimanne out, and appealed.

For some reason though, the umpire Paul Reiffel didn't rule him out immediately, and went on to consult with the leg umpire, and asked the Indian captain if they indeed wanted to appeal. That, despite the rule changes last year, which clearly state the bowler is "permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the non-striker."

During the time that the umpires consulted, the Indian team had a change of heart, much like they did with the case of Ian Bell at Trent Bridge last year, and withdrew the appeal. It was a classical case of this beast called "spirit of cricket" coming in the way of the laws of cricket. We criticise the ICC for not doing enough to address the lack of balance between bat and ball, but it was defeated by the players themselves in this case.

The rule change last year - allowing the bowler to run a batsman out any time before he has released the ball as opposed to previously when he would have to remove the bails before entering his delivery stride - was one aimed at taking away the unfair advantage the batsmen gained by leaving their crease early. In 1947-48, incidentally in the same country of hard but fair play, when Vinoo Mankad similarly ran Bill Brown out, Mankad found support despite moral posturing.

This particular ruling falls under Law 42, which deals with fair and unfair play. The laws of the game clearly consider unfair the act of batsmen gaining a few feet before the bowler has even delivered. India, by not continuing with the appeal, only abetted unfair play. The "spirit of cricket" also suggests - although this is not written anywhere - that the bowler should warn the batsman once before going ahead with the run-out, which is probably why India withdrew the appeal. Why such charity, though, for a batsman indulging in unfair play?

Cricket as a sport is full of idiosyncrasies that make it a special sport; this is not one of them. This one clearly puts the bowler, trying to prevent a batsman from unfair play, fight some sort of imaginary guilt before appealing for a run-out. The question "do you really want to do it" comes with a weight, with a suggestion there might be consequences beyond the game in question.

Not that this incident stopped Thirimanne from gaining similar unfair advantage in the rest of the innings. Which is good on him actually. He took note of the warning, stayed in when Ashwin bowled, but kept leaving his crease when lesser-alert bowlers, like R Vinay Kumar and Irfan Pathan, operated. He was aware of the consequences, and he was taking his chances.

There is a school of thought that India actually avoided an incident that could have brought controversy and disrepute to the game. There will be parallels drawn to the Bell run-out that India got reversed during the tea break in Nottingham last year. Opinion was divided back then, but this was clearly more generous from India. You could argue Bell made a genuine, honest mistake back then, but if Thirimanne were to plead innocence here, he would need to come up with a more meaty excuse than the ignorance of Law 42.

Bell was dopey, Thirimanne was trying to gain an unfair advantage. India should have known the difference. Then again, it should never have come down to India. Ashwin had appealed, Thirimanne was not inside his crease, the finger should have gone up immediately. Spirit of cricket should not have been allowed to come in the way of fair cricket.

Edited by Kanishkaa Balachandran

Sidharth Monga is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Fully agree with this comment as posted on the above link:

Posted by bombercol on (February 21 2012, 21:25 PM GMT)
I don't agree with this article. I am an accredited umpire and the spirit of the game is of utmost importance. "Mankadding" is now back in the rules, but really it is a very controversial way to get a batsman out. Umpire Reiffel needs to be applauded for the way it was handled. A dismissal such as this could have turned this game into a spiteful and nasty affair between the two teams. Remember Darryl Hair? He went by the rules to the letter, forfeited Pakistan in a test match for failing to return to the field, but it made the situation turn into turmoil and madness, he got criticised by all and sundry and then lost his job as a number of teams then refused to have him as an umpire in any future games. If he'd acted in the spirit of the game it would have very different. In this case Sehwag could have gone through with it and the batsman given out, and if it got nasty on or off the field, what repercussions would Sehwag now be facing?​

 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
154,198
I totally disagree with those comments, that umpire is more worried about upsetting players then playing by the rules

the guy was out fair and square, the batsman should be in his crease thats what the rule says, its pretty back and white

like I said before, where do you draw the line, is it OK if the batsman just stands mid pitch when the bowler is bowling ?

what next, do we call them back when they get bowled because they played a good shot and just missed the ball

any other rules we should ignore ?
 
Messages
15,353
The batsman was repeatedly warned, kept doing it so Ashwin went the mankad. India turned down the appeal and he continued to do it. Running two metres down the pitch before each ball us bowled is against the spirit of the game as well.

I don't get why people moan when the bowler does it. If the batsman doesn't like it why doesn't he just stay in his crease until the bowler lets the ball go? It's not f**king difficult. The fact he kept doing after they withdrew their appeal was ridiculous, how stupid can you be?
 

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,074
The batsman was repeatedly warned, kept doing it so Ashwin went the mankad. India turned down the appeal and he continued to do it.

100% agreed. REPEATEDLY is the key word. It was not just a one-off. I hate it when fans try to use "in the spirit of the game" as a means of justifying what they know to be not right. Rules are the rules - simple as that. The Sri Lankan batsman CLEARLY knew the potential consequences of his actions. To me, he should've suffered the same fate as Peter Kirsten in this clip, who like the Sri Lankan batsman, had been warned multiple times by Kapil Dev before the umpire finally gave him out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBIiZBsBTOQ

A similar "spirit of the game" incident I'm reminded of was Inzamam Ul-Haq 6 years ago, when he was given out for "obstructing the field" when he blocked a ball with his bat whilst he at least a couple of metres out of his crease (at 1:25 in the clip). Knowing that he would have trouble to make it back in time, Inzi clearly blocked the ball being in line of the stumps. He unequivocally KNEW he was in trouble when he saw that ball coming towards him, hence the reaction of throwing the bat infront of him. I don't feel sorry for Inzamam in a situation like that, and it was the correct decision by one of the best umpires in the game, Simon Taufel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soi3VcbW-YU
 
Last edited:

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,074
I don't get why people moan when the bowler does it. If the batsman doesn't like it why doesn't he just stay in his crease until the bowler lets the ball go? It's not f**king difficult. The fact he kept doing after they withdrew their appeal was ridiculous, how stupid can you be?

Exactly. Do the right thing, and you won't put yourself in an unenviable situation. Do the WRONG thing, and you leave yourself to be subject to the laws of the game. You cannot have it both ways, as you mentioned about people bitching about it when the bowler does it. Having watched numerous batsmen this summer not backing up before the bowler gets to the crease, I knew it would be a matter of time before someone tried to pull off a mankad dismissal. The bowler has every right to do so.
 

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,074
Ofcourse you do.

I seriously smh at the notion that an umpire is incorrect for following the letter of the law, that's some Bill Harrigan make it up on the spot as you go bullshit

Correct. Rules are rules, and rules are there for a reason. If last night's even sets some sort of precedent, then you might as well throw the whole rule book away and let players do whatever the hell they want.
 

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,074
that's some Bill Harrigan make it up on the spot as you go bullshit

You don't happen to be referring to that incident in the '89 GF, where he penalised a Tigers player for doing something "not in the spirit of the game" - a penalty that has never been given since that incident? Sounds much like the Labor party: making up policy on the run.
 

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,074
interesting this. Whilst I am not the biggest fan of "the spirit of cricket", I am thoroughly opposed to the mankad. Someone actually did it to one of our girls the other week in first grade and it is so uncool and cheap, I don't think it should be in the rules. I think less of anyone who tries it.

:lol:So, by your logic, the non-striker can be allowed to stand halfway down the pitch when the ball is bowled? Again, whether you agree with it or not, whilst the rule is still there, rules are rules. Am I going to drive 110km/h in a 60km/h zone, get caught by the police for speeding and then say in defence that I shouldn't have to adhere to the 60km/h speed limit in that zone because I don't want to? Or likewise, a person bringing drugs into Bali knowing the potential consequences? It simple doesn't matter whether or not the person disagrees with it, the law as it stands will be upheld.

There are many rules in cricket that I don't agree with. For example, the LBW law and the ball having to hit in line of the stumps if ure playing a shot. However, whilst it is still there, I know very well I will be subject to it everytime I step out to the crease to bat at whatever level of cricket.
 

lockyno1

Post Whore
Messages
53,350
The thing that I don't agree with is the fact that you must be warned...um why....if you are out, you are out. Wish batsmen would get off their high horse and stay in the crease, and I don't care if it is under 5's or test cricket...it is a basic rule!
 

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,074
The thing that I don't agree with is the fact that you must be warned...um why....if you are out, you are out. Wish batsmen would get off their high horse and stay in the crease, and I don't care if it is under 5's or test cricket...it is a basic rule!
:clap::clap:Well said locky. Using my previous analogy again, do I expect to JUST be warned if I get caught driving 50km/h over the speed limit? I don't think so. Furthermore, if I hit someone whilst driving that fast, do I expect the cop to say "Ok, just don't hit another person driving recklessly. You can go home now"?
 
Messages
33,280
You don't happen to be referring to that incident in the '89 GF, where he penalised a Tigers player for doing something "not in the spirit of the game" - a penalty that has never been given since that incident? Sounds much like the Labor party: making up policy on the run.

Actually I'm referring to him saying on radio once "you don't always have to follow the letter of the law" which is mind boggling but the 89 GF is the perfect example not to mention his constant refusal of penalties in origin and the 15 metres he would go back but then red completely different in NRL games.
 

undertaker

Coach
Messages
11,074
Actually I'm referring to him saying on radio once "you don't always have to follow the letter of the law" which is mind boggling but the 89 GF is the perfect example not to mention his constant refusal of penalties in origin and the 15 metres he would go back but then red completely different in NRL games.
I know I'm getting a bit off topic here as we're posting in the cricket thread, but that's the one thing I could never understand. I know refs are more lenient in Origin than clubs games, as Origin has historically been a lot more faster and physical in nature. What I couldn't comprehend was how incidents such as the Johnathan Thurston's grubby kick in the face (to David Williams I think) in Origin III 2009 (I think) went away unpunished, yet if a no-name player did that in an NRL match he would've got referred straight to the judiciary without hesitation. Being a NSWelshman aside, I still don't know to this day how he got off that.

And yes, it is comments and mentalities such as the "you don't always have to follow the letter of the law" you mentioned about that lead to more and more problems as if that's the case, players know they can REPEATEDLY exploit certain aspects of the game (much like the Melbourne Storm players with the grapple tackle, chicken wing etc. for years, and in the case of cricket, what has been discussed regarding the mankad incident last night).
 
Last edited:

Hallatia

Referee
Messages
26,433
I think if the batsman had been warned more than a couple of times, then it's fair game to mankad. I hadn't seen the incident, I had just read a little bit about it and am not a fan of the mankad.
 

AlwaysGreen

Post Whore
Messages
51,452
The way I look at it is this: All professional cricketers should know the rules. it you know the rule then you know it can happen, therefore you have been warned.

If its accidental then the bowler should give the batsmen a friendly reminder to stay in his crease, it its on purpose or happens again then it's fair game to run them out.
 

Latest posts

Top