http://www.cricket.com.au/news/suni...bill-brown-bradman-mcc-law-changes/2017-04-17
Indian legend backs MCC changes to the laws regarding run outs at the non-striker's end.
Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar has called for the term 'Mankad' to be removed from the game's terminology because it's disrespectful to the Indian legend after whom the practice is named.
'Mankading' refers to when a bowler runs out a batsman who has left their ground at the non-striker's end during the bowler's delivery stride.
The term was first coined in 1947 when great Indian allrounder Vinoo Mankad ran out Australia's Bill Brown at the non-striker's end during a Test match at the SCG.
It was the second time on the tour that Mankad had run out Brown at the bowler's end, despite numerous warnings from the Indian that Brown had moved out of his crease when backing up.
Mankad was heavily criticised in the Australian press at the time for an act that was deemed to be unsportsmanlike, although both Brown and Australia's captain Sir Donald Bradman defended Mankad's actions, which are within the laws of the game.
But the phrase 'Mankading' has been used ever since and Gavaskar has called on the practice to be re-named.
"I have grave objections to that because it's putting one of India's cricketing legends in a bad light," Gavaskar told Sony Max. "He has been one of India's all-time great cricketers.
"If it ... has to be referred by somebody's name, it should be (named after) the non-striker. Who, despite being warned twice by Mr Mankad ... he left (his crease). And the third time was when Mankad removed the bails and so suddenly there was an uproar created.
"I think it should be called (getting) 'Browned' because it was Bill Brown who was outside the crease. He was at fault, not Mr Mankad.
"Our legend's name should not be spoiled. If you want to call it anything, just say the batsman was 'Browned', not 'Mankaded'."
Gavaskar's comments come just a fortnight after the game's law-makers,
the Marylebone Cricket Club, approved changes that will put more onus on the batsman to stay in his ground.
Despite being within the rules, the rare act of running out the bowler at the non-striker's end has long been considered unsportsmanlike and the bowler has generally been vilified whenever it's occurred.
An incident at the Under-19 World Cup last year was widely condemned, as was Sri Lanka's Sachithra Senanayake when he ran out England's Jos Buttler during a match in 2014.
The MCC has moved to eradicate such controversy by extending the point at which a bowler can attempt the run out and also changing the name of the law to "put the onus on the non-striker to remain in his/her ground".
"It is often the bowler who is criticised for attempting such a run out but it is the batsman who is attempting to gain an advantage," the MCC said of changes to Law 41.16, which is now called ‘Non striker leaving his/her ground early’ having previously been called 'Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery'.
"The message to the non-striker is very clear – if you do not want to risk being run out, stay within your ground until the bowler has released the ball."
The MCC's changes are in line with the thoughts of Bradman about the Mankad incident.
Brown always took full responsibility for his famous dismissal, while Bradman was incredulous that the blame had been directed at the Indian player.
"For the life of me, I can't understand why (the press) questioned his sportsmanship," Bradman wrote in his autobiography Farewell to Cricket.
"The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered.
"If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the non-striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage."
Gavaskar agrees that the batsman should be responsible for remaining in his or her crease and applauded the MCC for their recent changes.
"There's no debate as far as I'm concerned," he said.
"If the batsman is trying to take an unfair advantage by leaving the crease before the ball has been delivered, I think the bowler has every right to remove the bails. Even without warning him.
"The Laws are very, very clear and I think now that the MCC has come up with accepting that, I think a lot of people will start to understand that it's the batsman who is being unfair, not the bowler."
