Just around one year back during IPL 2019, an incident renewed a debate that's been going on for years. In the eye of the storm, was Ravichandran Ashwin who had just run out Jos Buttler at the non-striker’s end. A huge furore broke out with people across the world divided on opinions. The stigma surrounding the Run-out at non-striker’s end would be something special to our sport. It’s quite bizarre and unique to our sport that something that’s written in-laws of the game should be considered to be causing an unnecessary furore all over the world of Cricket.
So, let’s start from what the fuss is all about. The Laws of Cricket 41.16 states that a “Non-striker leaving his/her ground early: If the non-striker is out of his/her ground from the moment the ball comes into play to the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the bowler is permitted to attempt to run him/her out. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one in the over.”
So, let’s put it in layman terms. The batsmen are supposed to stay within the popping crease at the non-striker’s end till the bowler releases the ball. If the batsmen fail to do so, then the bowlers are well within their rights to run them out. Now, what’s the advantage that the batsmen gain by taking a back up? Simple, it would help him/her to reach the striker’s end quicker. In today’s game, where we have seen run outs by millimetres, It is unacceptable to give any such leeway to the batsmen.
Let’s look into one of the first incidents of this kind of run out which happened during India’s tour of Australia in the year 1947. Bill Brown was run out by Vinoo Mankad in the 2nd Test in Sydney. But it was not the first time it happened on that tour. Even during a tour game vs Australia XI, Bill was run out in a similar manner. There was a great furore in the Australian media and this run out informally started to be known by the name of “Mankading”. Even back then Australian Great and Cricketing Legend Sir Don Bradman backed Vinoo Mankad. In his autobiography, He made the valid points defending the actions and stated how by backing too far or too early, the non-striker’s gain unfair advantage.
Also, Let’s not forget what a legend Vinoo Mankad was and how it is insulting to his legacy to have a run-out being referred in his name. His full name was Mulvantrai Himmatlal Mankad. He was fondly called as Vinoo and came to be known with that name. He’s one of the greatest players of our cricketing history. He has over 11,500 First Class Runs and 782 wickets. Those are the records that he should be known by, not due to a kind of runout. His family has, again and again, asked people to refrain from using his name to refer to the run-out and one should respect their family sentiments.
There are three sets of views about the run out at the non-striker’s end. One set believes that this run out is well within the laws of the game and the bowlers should use it more regularly. I for one belong to that set. Then, there are two anti runout groups. One set of people believe that while the law is fine, the bowler should give the batsmen a warning and if he still doesn’t adhere to the rules, then the bowler can surely run him out. The other set is full of people who believe that the concept itself is completely against the spirit of the game and should be thrown out of the laws of the game.
The spirit of cricket for those who don’t know is a sort of preamble to our laws of the game. Our game is considered to be a gentleman’s game as we put the spirit of the game above everything. Playing fair is considered to be paramount to our game. Now, one should explain why something that’s in the laws of the game can be against the spirit of the game and then secondly, why should all the spirit be entrusted on the bowlers? Isn’t gaining an unfair advantage or head start at non-striker’s end against the spirit as well? The anti runout gang won’t have any answers to the above questions. Their arguments fall flat on this aspect.
Let’s come to the aspect of warning a batsman before running him/her out. Why should anyone be warned in the name of the spirit of cricket? The batsmen are bound to be in the crease till the bowler releases the ball. If he decides to wander off, that’s his mistake. Not that of the bowler Batsmen should be always alert and see what’s happening. An inch gained at non-striker’s end could be the difference between victory or defeat. It cannot be based on intent alone.
The whole taboo surrounding the run out needs to be set aside. The best way to do so would be to see it happen more often. And to the people who are more concerned about the batsmen, it’s very simple to avoid this kind of run out. If you don’t want to get run out just stay in your crease. That’s it.
