August 31, 2012

LV= County Championship, Friday, August 31

6.10pm: Les Smith at Yorkshire v Gloucestershire
41

6.10pm: Les Smith at Yorkshire v Gloucestershire

Yorkshire have beaten Gloucestershire by two wickets with 16 balls to spare, claiming 19 priceless points in their push for promotion. Anthony McGrath finishes 76 not out. Report to follow.

5.55pm: Les Smith at Yorkshire v Gloucestershire

Yorkshire now require 31 runs from six overs to win, with three wickets in hand, and if Anthony McGrath stays in they might do it. He’s continued to take the fight to Gloucestershire, the leg side being particularly productive. Supporters of Yorkshire’s rivals at the top of Division 2 should be reassured that Gloucestershire are by no means making it easy in terms of effort.

5.30pm: Les Smith at Yorkshire v Gloucestershire

Any outcome is still possible at Scarborough. Andy Hodd was only able to contribute eight runs to Yorkshire’s run chase, but Anthony McGrath has continued to bat with panache and has just reached his half century. No sooner had he done so than Anthony Ireland dropped him off his own bowling. He was being assertively supported by Adil Rashid until he edged Will Gidman to the wicketkeeper. Azeem Rafiq comes to the wicket and Yorkshire need 47 to win off 9.3 overs. Meanwhile Kent’s win at Leicester adds yet more significance to what will happen over the next few minutes.

5.00pm: Les Smith at Yorkshire v Gloucestershire

It’s touch and go at North Marine Road. One of my colleagues predicts a draw with Yorkshire eight wickets down. The most experienced among us is unwilling to commit himself, but is keeping an eye on the weather radar and suggests rain stopped play. Anyway, Yorkshire have moved on to 236-5 with Anthony McGrath 36 not out. They need 77 off a minimum of 16 overs.

4.40pm: Les Smith at Yorkshire v Gloucestershire

Anthony McGrath has taken the initiative after the departure of Jaques, and is responsible for Yorkshire adding 20 runs in five overs. He’s been playing sweetly through the on side. Liam Norwell has just replaced Fuller at the Pavilion End.

4.25pm: Les Smith at Yorkshire v Gloucestershire

Phil Jaques has brought up Yorkshire’s 200 with a cut off James Fuller. They now need 113 runs for the victory. Jack Taylor’s off spin from the Trafalgar Square End is tying them down but runs are coming more freely at the other end. To add even more edge to events, it’s raining in Leeds and it’s heading this way. And now Jaques is caught driving at James Fuller. 205-5.

4.15pm: Jon Culley at Warwickshire v Nottinghamshire

The captains will shake hands on a draw in approximately 35 minutes' time, which will an entirely satisfactory outcome for Warwickshire, stretching their lead at the top of the Division One table by another 10 points to 22 and to all intents putting Nottinghamshire out of the race.

Sussex are still in the race, but need to beat Somerset at Hove, probably with maximum points, to retain an interest when they travel to Durham for the final round. Otherwise, Warwickshire's visit to Trent Bridge, which many hoped would be a title decider, will have nothing on it.

Warwickshire are 53-2. The only long face in the dressing room may be worn by William Porterfield, who was spared the axe that fell on Darren Maddy in this game but has done little to improve his standing with scores of 26 and 3.

4.10pm: Les Smith at Yorkshire v Gloucestershire

Yorkshire have just resumed a run chase that could shape their season and the outcome of the Division 2 promotion race. They went to tea on 183-3 requiring a further 131 runs to win at just over four an over. However, off the fourth ball of the final session Gary Ballance drove Jack Taylor’s off break straight to cover and now Anthony McGrath has come to the wicket. Phil Jaques is well set on 71 and Yorkshire will want him to stick around.

3.40pm: Mankading: The last word (maybe)

Jarrod Kimber on Mankading. The column you have been waiting for.

3.25pm: David Lloyd at Somerset v Surrey

In the words of Fred Trueman, I don’t know what’s going off out there. Or do I? It would seem that those four overs of ‘joke’ bowling were an attempt to goad Surrey into a challenging declaration. And if that was the case then it hasn’t worked.

There are now a minimum of 38 overs remaining and, at 275 for four, Surrey’s lead is 298. Take off two overs for the change of innings and Somerset would have to go ballistic to win.

A draw is by no means a bad result for Surrey so why risk losing? Those four overs were nothing but a tease!

3.05pm: Mankading revisited

Lots of bloggers writing about Mankading today. Here is Liam Cromar's take. Not many bloggers agree with the Taunton crowd it seems.

2.55pm: Les Smith at Yorkshire v Gloucestershire

There were three main topics of debate in the stands and on the terrace at Scarborough at lunch time. The first was the umpires’ decision to abandon the day at 1.20pm yesterday. Were they a little previous? Certainly, as I sat in my garden forty miles away at 5 o’clock enjoying the warm sunshine I was thinking that if it was like that at Scarborough the players might be on the field.

Secondly, there was what we saw during the first half hour of today’s play. Was it cricket? To be sure, it was far from edifying to watch two part-time spinners lobbing up doughnuts, and fielders pretending to attempt to get in the ways of balls on their way to the boundary. On the other hand, we’re pretty well assured of a result, and if it goes Yorkshire’s way they’ll be very well placed to bounce back to Division 1. My own view, I’m afraid, is pragmatic rather than principled. If my own county were to do what Yorkshire did this morning and went on to win, I’d rub my hands together and enjoy the points gained.

The last bone of contention is the degree of challenge in the target that Gloucestershire set Yorkshire. 314 at less than four an over might be considered somewhat generous. If Yorkshire go on to win their supporters won’t complain, but there might be a few down in Hampshire who will.

Yorkshire’s openers Adam Lyth and Joe Root both played delightfully before getting themselves out. Yorkshire are 152-2, going at exactly the required run rate.

3.00pm: Myles Hodgson at Lancashire v Durham

While grounds around the country anticipate exciting final afternoons, we appear to be heading towards a sedate conclusion with the race for bonus points in the allocated 110 overs marginally won by Durham.

Two early wickets this morning presented Lancashire, in more dire need of points than Durham, with an opportunity to claim three wickets in 42 overs to secure an extra bonus point. They were denied from doing so by some hapless fielding and a stubborn 148-run stand between Paul Collingwood and Scott Borthwick that secured an extra batting bonus point just before the 110 overs deadline.

Collingwood was dropped on 45 by Glen Chapple and 75 by Ashwell Prince, allowing him to complete his first championship century of the summer, while Borthwick finally fell for 60 after drilling Gary Keedy straight to Chapple at mid-off.

2.40pm: Jon Culley at Warwickshire v Nottinghamshire

In keeping with the (mean) spirit of the game, Nottinghamshire have avoided the follow-on and declared at 356-8, denying Warwickshire a third batting point. They handed Warwickshire a lead of 148 with 51 overs left in the day, which you presume will just be an exercise in marking time, given that Jim Troughton will have no interest whatsoever in giving Notts a sniff, even by setting up a ridiculous run-chase.

A draw will give Warwickshire a 28-point lead over Notts and a 22-point lead over Sussex, with two games to play. It could be all over next week.

Alex Hales finished unbeaten on 155, which is not a bad day's work for him with an England opener's position up for grabs.

2.10pm: David Lloyd at Somerset v Surrey

Happily, the help-yourself session lasted only four overs, but presumably served a purpose (producing 47 runs). And at least Chris Jones will have a happy memory of it – he claimed his maiden first-class wicket when a somewhat bemused looking Pietersen drilled an off-break to short extra cover.

KP did his bit by heaving three sixes - one of which was caught in the stands by Somerset’s currently injured Nick Compton - and departed with more of a grin than a scowl.

After that, it was back to the proper stuff with George Dockrell and Peter Trego back in the attack. Presumably the declaration will come when the leader is something like 280 or 300.

1.50pm: David Lloyd at Somerset v Surrey

Well, this is a bit of a surprise. Relations between the two teams have clearly not been harmed beyond repair by the events of yesterday. Or maybe it’s just a case of needs must. Anyway, we have the buffet bowling of James Hildreth and Chris Jones for Mr Pietersen to feast on.

Negotiations have taken place, clearly, over the lunch interval and Somerset – who could still have a tilt at the title – will be set a target by Surrey, who should be absolutely safe if they win here.

1.05pm: David Lloyd at Somerset v Surrey

Rory Burns came through quite a going-over from Alfonso Thomas, who – in the space of a few overs – hit the batsman’s hand (with a sharp lifter), his helmet (with a quick bouncer) and a toe (with a slightly off-line yorker).

The youngster not only survived but prospered sufficiently well to reach 60, moving to that number with a lofted straight drive off George Dockrell that also brought up Surrey’s first century opening stand of the championship season.

Dockrell had his revenge a couple of balls later, however, through a bat/pad catch to short leg, then Sajid Mahmood removed Zafar Ansari and the stage was set once again for Kevin Pietersen.

It wasn’t long before KP was fussing about an open window high above the sightscreen at the River End. He couldn’t get his message across but then stirred spectators into action by lofting Dockrell for a big six in their direction.

This is a good test for young George and one the 20-year-old is likely to relish, whatever the outcome. At lunch, Surrey were 176 ahead at 153 for two with a minimum of 63 overs remaining. Who needs transfer deadline day when we could – I stress, could – have an interesting finish here?

1pm: Jon Culley at Warwickshire v Nottinghamshire

No Mankading here, thank you very much, but Notts have lost two wickets somewhat carelessly and might not avoid the follow-on, although you suspect Warwickshire do not have enough time, or possibly energy, to bowl them out again.

Chris Read had the opportunity to score his second century of the season but danced down the pitch to Ian Blackwell on 95 and missed the ball. The Notts captain flung himself headlong towards his crease but Tim Ambrose had the bails off in a flash.

Read's stand with Alex Hales was well past the previous record for the fifth Notts wicket against Warwickshire. It put on 222 in 49.3 overs.

It was an aberration that followed an otherwise solid occupation by the Notts pair, barring the odd streaky inside edge while Tom Milnes and Chris Wright were charging in early doors. But after Read's dismissal, Paul Franks wasted a chance to underline his value to the squad when he clipped a ball from Boyd Rankin straight to mid-on for nine.

But Hales, who is on 139, has just lofted Blackwell back over his head for six and Notts are 322-6 at lunch. They need to reach 355 to be less than 150 behind.

12.05pm: Meanwhile, on Mankading...

Here is an interesting blog by Will Atkins

And thanks to Jon R below the line for alerting us to this:

You can view the incident on the ECB highlights

11.55am: Myles Hodgson at Lancashire v Durham

While war threatened to break out in the West Country yesterday, here in the North we were all settling down to a final day with a match heading gently towards a draw. That was until two early wickets for Simon Kerrigan, Lancashire’s left-arm spinner, which has left Durham facing a potentially surprise first innings deficit.

Michael Richardson and Phil Mustard have both fallen to catches close to the wicket and Kerrigan to extracting turn and bounce from the River End, so we may have a more exciting final day that we envisaged – even if it is Lancashire chasing valuable bonus points towards their relegation struggle.

Durham probably need only a draw to safeguard their Division One status next summer, so are unlikely to be open to setting up a contrived finish. The events at Scarborough, however, have sparked an interesting debate in the press tent, strictly divided down parochial lines. Those of a Yorkshire persuasion believe it is a great move for cricket, others believe the opposite.

There has also been plenty of discussion about football’s transfer deadline day with the Lancashire press officer, a devoted Bolton fan, hoping for a few more signings before tonight. There is a general consensus that having one for cricket would add a frisson of excitement to the county season. Can you imagine Geoff Boycott, Yorkshire’s president, being stopped outside the Hutton Gates at Headingley by a TV reporter asking for the latest on transfer deals as the clock ticked down towards midnight?

11.50am: Les Smith at Yorkshire v Gloucestershire

Rejoice! The sun is out, the sky is blue, there’s not a cloud etc. After two washed out days a sizeable crowd arrived looking forward to an intriguing day at North Marine Road. The question being asked yesterday was whether Yorkshire would be conservative and go for the points available from a draw – potentially 8 – or gamble in the hope of doubling their money. We soon found out. Andrew Gale declared on Tuesday night’s total of 61-2, conceding a first innings lead of 154 runs to Gloucestershire. He also gave us an immediate indication of the type of cricket we could expect for the next half hour or so, throwing the ball to himself to bowl the first over of the innings. It was the sixth over of his first class career. At the other end it was Adam Lyth. Yesterday we were under water, now we had spin at both ends.

Gloucestershire declared their second innings closed after scoring 159 off ten overs. Watching Gale and Lyth bowl, it was impossible not to think of those badminton players in the Olympics who kept serving deliberately into the net. Gale’s career bowling average is now 144. For the record, Benny Howell scored 83 with 14 4s and two 6s, and Rob Nicol 75 with 13 4s and three 6s. Yorkshire require 314 runs off 84 overs to secure the victory which would see them overtake Hampshire into the Division 2 promotion places.

11.445am: Jon Culley at Warwickshire v Nottinghamshire

Should Warwickshire somehow manage to win this match, which is a bit of a long shot given that to do so they will need to take 16 wickets in a day on a pitch that has so far yielded 10 in 185 overs, there will be echoes of their last Championship winning year.

In 2004, they won the title employing the simple tactic of seeking to bat only once in the game. They scored 410 or more in the first innings in nine of their matches, including two totals of 600 or more and three others between 502 and 546. As it happens, they won only one of those matches by an innings.

Nonetheless, with five victories in the wins column, they clinched the title on September 6 when Sussex, the only team that could catch them, were beaten by Middlesex at Hove. History could repeat itself next week, after a fashion, if Sussex lose to Somerset at Hove.

Warwickshire have topped 400 in their first innings only six times this season, including this match. At 238-4, Nottinghamshire still needed another 117 to avoid the follow-on, although Warwickshire have not made any inroads today with Alex Hales completing his second century of the season in a partnership with Chris Read worth 169.

11.05am: David Lloyd at Somerset v Surrey

The lull after the storm? Well, it’s all quiet on the West Country front at the moment after yesterday’s ‘Mankading’ of Somerset batsman Alex Barrow.

Gareth Batty, the Surrey captain who took ultimate responsibility for Murali Kartik’s run-out of the backing-up Barrow, said last night that he would meet his opposite number, Marcus Trescothick, behind closed doors to “make sure it is right.”

That he did, by all accounts, with Trescothick reporting that he was happy to move on after he had accepted Batty’s apology.

There was still a fairly sombre mood here before start of play. But Surrey’s not out openers, Rory Burns and Zafar Ansari, walked out to gentle applause from spectators – a far cry from the boos, jeers and angry shouts that greeted every member of the visiting team last night.

Whether we have any chance of a meaningful contest here remains to be seen. Surrey resumed 81 ahead at 58 for nought.

10.30: David Hopps with a quick Mankading refresher course

You have never heard of Mankading? That's running someone out backing up. Much of the rest of the cricketing world knows it as Mankading. Very few people in England do. But they know that Murali Kartik did it to poor young Alex Barrow at Taunton yesterday and made a man of him as a result.

But in the interests of globalism and all that, we wrote "Mankading" into David Lloyd's piece. He probably has no idea what he is talking about.There again it won't be the first time. (Old joke, should have resisted it).

A brief crib sheet for those who are secretly a little confused:

(i) The MCC laws allow Mankading

(ii) There is nothing specifically in the Spirit of Cricket saying that Mankading is against the spirit of the game.

(iii) The tradition where batsmen are warned before they are run out at the non-striker's end has kept the peace for decades, to majority approval, but it is only a tradition.

(iv) Kartik did warn Barrow - so you could ask, why the fuss?

(v) The ICC changed their regulations for internatiional cricket recently and these have been adopted by the ECB for professional cricket in England. A bowler used to have to run a batsman out before entering the delivery stride, now it can be done before completing the delivery stride. That makes it easier.

(vi) Change regulations and you draw attention to something. There has definitely been a shift of opinion - certainly outside England - towards the view that Mankading is acceptable.

(vii) More cider was spilled by angry spectators at Taunton yesterday than at any time this season.

Feel free to add your own views below in the somewhat more gentle environment of the county blog.

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • capsules for weight loss on January 26, 2013, 16:59 GMT

    s9aKxl Looking forward to reading more. Great article post.Really looking forward to read more. Much obliged.

  • Buy wow gold on September 15, 2012, 16:10 GMT

    I am really pleased to read this website posts which carries tons of valuable data, thanks for providing such information.

  • where buy wow gold at game4boss.com on September 13, 2012, 21:07 GMT

    Hi, I just wanted to mention, you're dead wrong. Your post doesn't make any sense.

  • shop inexpensive wow gold at buywowgolds.de on September 11, 2012, 23:52 GMT

    Thanks for all your valuable effort on this web page. My mum take interest in conducting research and it's obvious why. Many of us notice all concerning the compelling medium you deliver priceless tricks via the web site and as well as invigorate participation from website visitors on that area of interest so our own princess has always been studying a lot. Take advantage of the remaining portion of the year. You're performing a good job.

  • Chris Cowles on August 31, 2012, 16:47 GMT

    I think a batsman going out of his crease is lucky to get one conventional warning.

  • David Hopps on August 31, 2012, 16:26 GMT

    Thanks for all the comments today. Come back and join us again.

  • Martin P on August 31, 2012, 15:58 GMT

    Massive win for Kent puts them right back in the promotion hunt. A bit of rain in Scarborough would go down very nicely indeed!

  • Chris Hughes on August 31, 2012, 14:49 GMT

    The fact that numerous bloggers and Twitterati have come out in support of Mankading is a depressing reflection of modern cricket. What is a relatively common practice on the village green shouldn't become a standard practice in the professional game.

  • Derek Grabham on August 31, 2012, 14:33 GMT

    Surrey seem to aim for a draw, I fear that may bite them at the end of the season if Worcs and Lancs win last two games. They should be bold and go for it like in the other current Championship games. That is enterprising.

  • Anonymous on August 31, 2012, 13:21 GMT

    Somerset should look closely at themselves before blaming others for yesterday's run out. Barrow was especially dozy to be out of his crease just three balls after being warned for the same breach of the rules.

    I've heard a recording today of former Somerset player Steve Snell whining about the treatment of 'young Alex'. For goodness sake - he's a professional sportsman, not a twelve year old making up the numbers in a village fourth team friendly! In any case, there was a senior player ('Pirate Pete' Trego) out in the middle with him who should have offered some clear guidance after the warning.

    In addition, I have the impression that things were going on and being said by both sides before the warning. That should have contributed to both batsmen taking Kartik's warning particularly seriously.

  • capsules for weight loss on January 26, 2013, 16:59 GMT

    s9aKxl Looking forward to reading more. Great article post.Really looking forward to read more. Much obliged.

  • Buy wow gold on September 15, 2012, 16:10 GMT

    I am really pleased to read this website posts which carries tons of valuable data, thanks for providing such information.

  • where buy wow gold at game4boss.com on September 13, 2012, 21:07 GMT

    Hi, I just wanted to mention, you're dead wrong. Your post doesn't make any sense.

  • shop inexpensive wow gold at buywowgolds.de on September 11, 2012, 23:52 GMT

    Thanks for all your valuable effort on this web page. My mum take interest in conducting research and it's obvious why. Many of us notice all concerning the compelling medium you deliver priceless tricks via the web site and as well as invigorate participation from website visitors on that area of interest so our own princess has always been studying a lot. Take advantage of the remaining portion of the year. You're performing a good job.

  • Chris Cowles on August 31, 2012, 16:47 GMT

    I think a batsman going out of his crease is lucky to get one conventional warning.

  • David Hopps on August 31, 2012, 16:26 GMT

    Thanks for all the comments today. Come back and join us again.

  • Martin P on August 31, 2012, 15:58 GMT

    Massive win for Kent puts them right back in the promotion hunt. A bit of rain in Scarborough would go down very nicely indeed!

  • Chris Hughes on August 31, 2012, 14:49 GMT

    The fact that numerous bloggers and Twitterati have come out in support of Mankading is a depressing reflection of modern cricket. What is a relatively common practice on the village green shouldn't become a standard practice in the professional game.

  • Derek Grabham on August 31, 2012, 14:33 GMT

    Surrey seem to aim for a draw, I fear that may bite them at the end of the season if Worcs and Lancs win last two games. They should be bold and go for it like in the other current Championship games. That is enterprising.

  • Anonymous on August 31, 2012, 13:21 GMT

    Somerset should look closely at themselves before blaming others for yesterday's run out. Barrow was especially dozy to be out of his crease just three balls after being warned for the same breach of the rules.

    I've heard a recording today of former Somerset player Steve Snell whining about the treatment of 'young Alex'. For goodness sake - he's a professional sportsman, not a twelve year old making up the numbers in a village fourth team friendly! In any case, there was a senior player ('Pirate Pete' Trego) out in the middle with him who should have offered some clear guidance after the warning.

    In addition, I have the impression that things were going on and being said by both sides before the warning. That should have contributed to both batsmen taking Kartik's warning particularly seriously.

  • don tarr on August 31, 2012, 13:01 GMT

    I played local cricket for many years and never ran anybody out in this way. You are taught to start walking as the bowler startys his run... if the bowler as he gets to the crease suddenly slows down it is obvious that the momentum of the batsman will take him over the crease. Barrow should have been warned by the Umpire as that seems to me to be the best outcome. Very poor sportsmanship by the Surrey players... How embarrassing for them

  • HackWils on August 31, 2012, 12:59 GMT

    Both Michael Holding and Michael Atherton came out in support of Kartik and Batty today. Athers said 'How is it the bowler who is impinging of the spirit of cricket', while Holding asked how come batsmen are allowed to 'cheat'. In fact, he added that all batsmen should be run out for walking down the wicket.

  • Neil Robinson on August 31, 2012, 12:41 GMT

    Have now seen it - thanks for link JonR. My gut reaction is that the batsman was 'simply' wandering. Having said that he was given out - rightly. Whether Batty should have pressed the appeal - another question. Whether Trescothick and Batty have sorted it over bangers and cider - hopefully so. sad - it happens - move on

  • Andy Plowright on August 31, 2012, 12:40 GMT

    ...and yes it does depend on which laws you use. It's a case of too many rules and regulations where one set of regulations are necessary.

  • Andy Plowright on August 31, 2012, 12:34 GMT

    The more pertinent law is Law 23.4 (x).

    "23.4. Umpire calling and signalling Dead ball (ix) the ball does not leave the bowler’s hand for any reason other than an attempt to run out the non-striker before entering his delivery stride. See Law 42.15 (Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery)."

    As Kartik was into his delivery stride with his front foot down and the ball did not leave his hand, two things are apparent:

    1) As Kartik was in his delivery stride, Barrow was actually doing nothing wrong.

    2) Kartik removing the bails when his front foot had been placed down (it's pretty much on the crease when he spins round) is not allowed under the rules, he hasn't released the ball in his delivery stride, and it should have been called a dead ball.

    For all the talk of the spirit of cricket and ambiguity in the rules, it's clear once the laws are read that this incident is actually fully covered by the laws and it's a case of an error by Martik, Batty, and the umpires.

  • JB on August 31, 2012, 12:32 GMT

    Against mankading: 1. Unlike conventional run outs, there is no skill involved. 2. It is a cheap and unseemly way to lose a wicket which is disappointing and unedifying for spectators and players alike. 3. There is something intangible about the aesthetics of cricket which is offended by the practice. 4. The occasional advantage gained by backing up too far is very slim compared to the loss of a wicket.

  • Samuel on August 31, 2012, 11:49 GMT

    The idea of deceit is an interesting one - a bowler pretending to bowl to play for the run out is surely as bad as the batsman backing up too far? Impossible to arbitrate mind you, but it brings the whole 'spirit of the game' back into it if you ask me.

  • AB on August 31, 2012, 11:41 GMT

    oh, well now its a stupid illogical law that's bound to create antagonism. It was all very clear before, once the bowler starts to bowl, the batsman can leave his crease, no sooner, no later. Now we've got the possibility of the bowler pretending to bowl and then sneaking a wicket like we had here.

    This furore should provide all the evidence the ICC need to realise that they should change it back with immediate effect.

  • Wideboy on August 31, 2012, 11:40 GMT

    Sorry, I understand the wishful-thinking behind the 'one attempt to mankad' idea - but it would be a nightmare in practice.

    Suppose the non-striker gets his bat down in time and is not-out on the mankad attempt?

    Then he can be backing up half-way down the wicket every ball, and there's nothing the fielding team can do about it.

    That's the problem with making laws based on specific intances... the new law is likely to make two new loop-holes to exploit.

    More worryingly, the more specific situations that are explicitly covered in the laws, the less room there is for the umpires to enforce 'the spirit of the game'

    For what it's worth, IMHO provided it's true the bowler warned the batsman then the bowler was totally within his rights.

    The age issue is a red herring. If he's good enough to be playing 1st class cricket he should be good enough to abide by the rules of 1st class cricket. Imagine if LBW appeals had to be resolved in favour of the younger player! Ridiculous.

  • tonysmalltoes on August 31, 2012, 11:38 GMT

    @Tim C. Do you really think he was trying to take an unfair advantage? Have you seen it? I'm not for or against it and am biased as a Somerset supporter, but it could have been done during any delivery to any ball by any team in any match. I guess it's one point back to the bowlers in a game between batsmen and bowlers.

  • JonR on August 31, 2012, 11:36 GMT

    David, I commented just after you, so missed your post. As I said, I think the "overreaction" can be explained given Karthik's behaviour throughout the day. I find it very disappointing to see cricketers verbally abuse each other on the field, and seeing an ex-Somerset player (one of which I was a fan of) do this makes it many times worse. I realise that Karthik may have been the focus of comments from supporters prior to this, but it certainly doesn't excuse his behaviour to the Somerset players. His sarcastic clapping after Alex had hit him for 4 prior to the run out, was very childish.

  • Tim C on August 31, 2012, 11:29 GMT

    @AB and @Doylee, Doylee is right to point out the change, but it only applies to ICC and ECB First class regulations. Law 42.15 still applies below this level (unless amended in a similar fashion by the governing body responsible for the match). Kartik had previously warned Barrow before attempting the run out. Peter Hartley, the umpire, acted correctly (and sensibly) in asking Batty if he wish to uphold the appeal and then giving the correct decision. @tonysmalltoes, Batsmen are told to back up, that's why the Law/reg exists - to stop them taking an unfair advantage.

  • JonR on August 31, 2012, 11:22 GMT

    You can view the incident on the ECB highlights: http://www.ecbtv.co.uk/video/20120831/somerset-v-surrey-day-3_2276246_2905657 I would say it's dodgy at best but, even as a Somerset fan, I still recognise the right for the run out to be given. However, what I disagree with is Karthik's behaviour before that. I don't understand why he should feel so negative towards the supporters and more importantly his former teammates. He gave us good service in his first season here (though by the end of the second it was obvious that he has his mind elswehwere). Therefore, I am totally disgusted by the way he was giving dog's abuse to the departing batmen and sarcastically clapping a young batsmen who had just hit him for 4. No wonder people reacted so badly when he ran out the same batsman.

  • David Hopps on August 31, 2012, 11:17 GMT

    Apologies about the interface. We hope to have something sexier next season. I agree with Sir Leonard that once you warn, then that's OK, and the one-chance limit seems a sound one.I am not sure if Sir Leonard has ever tried to do it more than once in his own career? Most people accept that after a warning it is fair game. It does seem a bit of an overreaction, based on hostility to a former Somerset player maybe, or just traditional hostility to Surrey, even after all they have gone through this season. Surrey say Kartik did warn Barrow, although I haven't seen Somerset confirm it. But it doesn't help when the ICC (or in this case ECB) bring in a mass of regulations that supercede the MCC Laws of the game. We basically have two lawmakers at the moment. MCC says you have to do it before your delivery stride, ICC/ECB say during delivery stride. Personally, I think there is so much over backing-up these days, the adjustment is a good one.

  • Athik on August 31, 2012, 11:12 GMT

    Why so much fuss for a run-out is above my head. Same happened when India dismissed Bell... not sure why & how "Spirit of the game" comes into picture. Its clearly batsman violating the rules by backing too far... if at all any Spirit has been violated, its been done by batsman not by bowler...

  • Sam on August 31, 2012, 11:08 GMT

    It would be interesting to hear the true facts regarding yesterday's 'Mankading' incident before making a judgement on the rights and wrongs. There are several things to consider :-

    1. Was Barrow clearly warned by Kartik earlier in the over? A lot of accounts from people at the game seem to indicate he wasn't.

    2. At what stage of the bowler's action did Barrow leave his crease and start backing up? Was he was halfway down the wicket when the bail was removed or did Kartik stop in his delivery stride to catch the batsman out?

    There are numerous factors to take into account, however I'm reluctant to automatically criticise a young batsman learning his way in the game in favour of a player with Kartik's track record, especially as his actions prior to the incident were far from that of an experienced international cricketer (e.g. antagonising the Somerset batsmen with over the top celebrations when he took a wicket).

  • Martin P on August 31, 2012, 11:06 GMT

    Wasn't just Somerset's fans though was it, it was a Surrey member who admonished Batty and Kartik at tea and called for the former's resignation.

  • akpy on August 31, 2012, 11:01 GMT

    did MCCs spirit of the game also include applying vaseline on the ball (john lever & tony greig in india), rubbing sand into the ball (atherton), refusing a runner to opposing captain when it was widely the practice to allow it (strauss)?? am pretty sure there have been plenty more incidents. Clearly, the more sensible amongst us feel sorry for kartik in this whole episode and batty, of course, who had to go and say sorry. What are somerset's fans thinking, when they made and still make all that ruckus?? Not even a single word to their own player who was abusing the spirit of the game royally !!

  • Dave on August 31, 2012, 11:00 GMT

    Clearly the ICC decided that having removed the Mankad, batsmen were taking too many liberties, so whilst it is a rather unloved law, its reinstatement was neccessary. However, there is no point in reintroducing the dismissal if it is going to be apologised for and not applied in future, as it won't modify the batsman's behaviour.

    That liberties were taken can also be seen by the large increase of batsmen run out off straight drives when backing up, which used to be a rarity and considered very unlucky, as bowlers were now specifically trying to deflect the ball rather than field it cleanly.

    Back in my day, you knew not to venture out of the crease until the ball was released because your wicket was at risk. Once warned, if you did it again, more fool you. Barrow was in the wrong and Kartik was in the right

    Batty was wrong to apologise and I doubt Tresco returned the compliment by apologising for Barrow being out of his crease.

  • Neil Robinson on August 31, 2012, 10:54 GMT

    Sorry for repeated posting. This interface isn't easy

  • sam on August 31, 2012, 10:52 GMT

    Why do these kinda of things are upsportsman like in England only? When Strauss doesn't allow Graeme Smith a runner - England have an aggressive streak to get to the top so it's ok. When Ian Bell gets runs out for walking off in the India Tour to England the Captain & Coach run into the Indian dressing room for sympathy and unsportsman like behavior?! Get a life, it's MCC that makes the rules - if it's out, than it's out - don't care where you pour down the Cider!!

  • Neil Robinson on August 31, 2012, 10:51 GMT

    Sounds like it has all been resolved in the best traditions of the game - over a glass after play, with no tweeting (yet). Makes a good story - but tomorrow's chip wrappings

  • Doylee on August 31, 2012, 10:49 GMT

    If you read the article AB you might note the law has changed on run outs as follows:

    The ICC changed their regulations for internatiional cricket recently and these have been adopted by the ECB for professional cricket in England. A bowler used to have to run a batsman out before entering the delivery stride, now it can be done before completing the delivery stride. That makes it easier.

    The bowler warned the batman before running him out so the batman cannot really complain.

  • sir leonard on August 31, 2012, 10:43 GMT

    Why not just simplify the law.

    A bowler has to warn a batsman, then after that warning he has one chance to run him out but one chance only to each batsman in the opposition. This stops a bowler from trying to do it all the time.

    Personally I don't see a problem with it, he had warned him, he still did it and so he got run out. Get on with it.

    It's a bloomin batsman's game anyway!

  • AB on August 31, 2012, 10:29 GMT

    If you watch the replay, Kartik had clearly jumped and landed on his left foot before stopping and turning and effecting the run out. Once his left foot lands, he has entered his delivery stride.

    Law 42 clear states: "The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker."

    Appendix D states: "The delivery stride is the stride during which the delivery swing is made, whether the ball is released or not. It starts when the bowler’s back foot lands for that stride and ends when the front foot lands in the same stride."

    Hence the run out never should have stood anyway. Very poor umpiring.

  • James Greenfield on August 31, 2012, 10:27 GMT

    I was pretty outraged before, but I read it as Kartik hadn't given him a warning but he actually had as described above so there should be no reason for complaint. It sounds like an ignorant overreaction to me.

  • Samuel on August 31, 2012, 10:23 GMT

    I'm not against it, but I'm definitely not for it - all the people criticising Somerset would do well to think how they'd feel if it happened to a young batsmen from their side. It does feel different, it does feel unfair, even if perhaps it shouldn't. Imagine Swann Mankading Tendulkar in Mumbai for example; you can guarantee that wouldn't go down well! I personally think it should fall to the umpires to warn the batsman and perhaps signal dead ball if he feels the backing up is getting too much - batsmen would stop doing it if they were regularly not given runs for it, as opposed to being run out once in a blue moon.

    At the very least though, it injected a bit of something into a game that was drifting, and the thought of all that wasted cider breaks my heart. Would be nice to see how young Rory Burns goes today - I think he'll be in the England frame given a couple of seasons. Hales also scoring some timely top order runs too...

  • tonysmalltoes on August 31, 2012, 10:23 GMT

    Murali did nothing wrong. However, this could happen on every ball in every game. Batsmen are told to back up. Barrow was doing nothing more than this. You could argue he wasn't even backing up enough.

  • simsini on August 31, 2012, 10:16 GMT

    Marcus Trescothick, Peter Trego and the Somerset supporters showed themselves up big time yesterday. Kartik and Batty did nothing wrong and it is sad that Batty came out to apologise.

    They did more than they needed to under the laws of the game by giving a warning. I'm glad Kartik stuck to his convictions on Twitter last night.

  • M Dean on August 31, 2012, 10:13 GMT

    The batsman is cheating (possibly inadvertently). The bowler warns him that if he continues to cheat, he (the bowler) will run him out. The batsman ignores the warning and continues to cheat. The bowler runs him out.

    It takes a strange sort of morality to support the batsman.

  • Athik on August 31, 2012, 10:09 GMT

    If 'MANKADing' is against "Spirit of the game" then, pls ban run-outs... simple.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Athik on August 31, 2012, 10:09 GMT

    If 'MANKADing' is against "Spirit of the game" then, pls ban run-outs... simple.

  • M Dean on August 31, 2012, 10:13 GMT

    The batsman is cheating (possibly inadvertently). The bowler warns him that if he continues to cheat, he (the bowler) will run him out. The batsman ignores the warning and continues to cheat. The bowler runs him out.

    It takes a strange sort of morality to support the batsman.

  • simsini on August 31, 2012, 10:16 GMT

    Marcus Trescothick, Peter Trego and the Somerset supporters showed themselves up big time yesterday. Kartik and Batty did nothing wrong and it is sad that Batty came out to apologise.

    They did more than they needed to under the laws of the game by giving a warning. I'm glad Kartik stuck to his convictions on Twitter last night.

  • tonysmalltoes on August 31, 2012, 10:23 GMT

    Murali did nothing wrong. However, this could happen on every ball in every game. Batsmen are told to back up. Barrow was doing nothing more than this. You could argue he wasn't even backing up enough.

  • Samuel on August 31, 2012, 10:23 GMT

    I'm not against it, but I'm definitely not for it - all the people criticising Somerset would do well to think how they'd feel if it happened to a young batsmen from their side. It does feel different, it does feel unfair, even if perhaps it shouldn't. Imagine Swann Mankading Tendulkar in Mumbai for example; you can guarantee that wouldn't go down well! I personally think it should fall to the umpires to warn the batsman and perhaps signal dead ball if he feels the backing up is getting too much - batsmen would stop doing it if they were regularly not given runs for it, as opposed to being run out once in a blue moon.

    At the very least though, it injected a bit of something into a game that was drifting, and the thought of all that wasted cider breaks my heart. Would be nice to see how young Rory Burns goes today - I think he'll be in the England frame given a couple of seasons. Hales also scoring some timely top order runs too...

  • James Greenfield on August 31, 2012, 10:27 GMT

    I was pretty outraged before, but I read it as Kartik hadn't given him a warning but he actually had as described above so there should be no reason for complaint. It sounds like an ignorant overreaction to me.

  • AB on August 31, 2012, 10:29 GMT

    If you watch the replay, Kartik had clearly jumped and landed on his left foot before stopping and turning and effecting the run out. Once his left foot lands, he has entered his delivery stride.

    Law 42 clear states: "The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker."

    Appendix D states: "The delivery stride is the stride during which the delivery swing is made, whether the ball is released or not. It starts when the bowler’s back foot lands for that stride and ends when the front foot lands in the same stride."

    Hence the run out never should have stood anyway. Very poor umpiring.

  • sir leonard on August 31, 2012, 10:43 GMT

    Why not just simplify the law.

    A bowler has to warn a batsman, then after that warning he has one chance to run him out but one chance only to each batsman in the opposition. This stops a bowler from trying to do it all the time.

    Personally I don't see a problem with it, he had warned him, he still did it and so he got run out. Get on with it.

    It's a bloomin batsman's game anyway!

  • Doylee on August 31, 2012, 10:49 GMT

    If you read the article AB you might note the law has changed on run outs as follows:

    The ICC changed their regulations for internatiional cricket recently and these have been adopted by the ECB for professional cricket in England. A bowler used to have to run a batsman out before entering the delivery stride, now it can be done before completing the delivery stride. That makes it easier.

    The bowler warned the batman before running him out so the batman cannot really complain.

  • Neil Robinson on August 31, 2012, 10:51 GMT

    Sounds like it has all been resolved in the best traditions of the game - over a glass after play, with no tweeting (yet). Makes a good story - but tomorrow's chip wrappings