England cricket August 31, 2012

Spirit of cricket invoked too easily

Imagine your favourite player was on 70. It's a flat pitch. The bowlers are tired. The batsman is flying. And a hundred is certainly on the cards
72

Imagine your favourite player was on 70. It's a flat pitch. The bowlers are tired. The batsman is flying. And a hundred is certainly on the cards. Then, in a moment of nothing short of pure stupidity, the batsman is not deceived by the bowler, or out thought by the captain, he just half hits one and is caught on the long on boundary.

It was stupid, dozy and was clearly a mistake.

Now imagine the umpire went over to the captain and said, "Look, it was clearly just a stupid error, he didn't mean it, I'm offering you the chance to call him back".

Under the laws of cricket, he's out. But it's a rubbish way to go out, and really, it was an absent-minded mistake. No one would call him back though. Because his mistake was something that happens in cricket every day.

Alex Barrow's mistake was different. Barrow repeatedly left his crease before the ball was bowled, which under the laws of cricket is out if the bowler takes the bails off. He was warned about this by Murali Kartik, and still he repeated it. Kartik probably doesn't warn batsmen that if they keep playing across the line, they'll probably miss one.

For those who believe this is a moral issue, and point to the spirit of cricket, Barrow broke the spirit of cricket before Kartik did. Most notably "To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice". Barrow had left his ground early, more than once, he was cheating a few extra yards, flouting the laws of the game, questioning the spirit of the game, and he got run out.

Steve Snell said he was shocked, but how could he be? Barrow had been warned, don't cheat or I'll run you out. He did it again.

Batsmen have been backing up terribly for years. At the end of T20 matches, you can see batsmen more than a metre from their crease as the bowler delivers the ball. It means that the bowler, who is bowling with the laws and spirit of the game, is more likely to concede a run. Barrow's offence was probably absent-mindedness, but he was still out of his ground before the ball was bowled, giving him a greater chance of taking a run.

To run a batsman out for this cheating is against the spirit of the game according to many people. It's not written anywhere in the laws, or even in the spirit preamble. But the lawmakers did take time to allow a batsman to be run out for leaving his ground before the ball is delivered. We should forget that though, and only apply the vague spirit of cricket phrases.

And if we are to take the spirit of cricket literally, one of the sharp practices it mentions is appealing knowing the batsman is not out. That means that the spirit of cricket is broken on a minute-by-minute basis all around the world. Where is the outcry of emotion that Kartik has had when an international bowler appeals, but then tells his captain not to refer it?

Cricket fans need to remember that the phrase spirit of cricket came from a time when the game was sexist, racist and the laws of the game were shaped by betting. Amateurs were separated from professionals, white captains led the West Indies and Aboriginal fast bowlers were called for chucking. The spirit of cricket phrase was lip service for what was often a grubby disgusting sport.

The real spirit of cricket isn't a bunch of pious words written by some champion batsman, it's Basil D'Oliveira wanting to play against his own country who didn't want him, Bob Blair walking out to avoid the follow on after his fiancé had died, Rick McCosker batting with a broken jaw, the arm bands of Henry Olonga and Andy Flower and the fact that Thilan Samaraweera plays on despite being shot by a terrorist while representing his country.

I'm pretty sure the spirit of cricket, real or imagined, can handle a batsman being run out for leaving his ground a bit early.

Jarrod Kimber is 50% of the Two Chucks, and the mind responsible for cricketwithballs.com

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Santosh J S on September 3, 2012, 9:22 GMT

    Well said Kimber. This nonsense about 'spirit of the game' being used in such narrow terms needs to be pointed out. And Mankading does not fall under that category, prior warning or not.

    And agree with your comment about the lack of understanding about what constitutes fairness: to it i would add appealing for catches that are not, blind-sided fieldsmen appealing for LBWs, sustained efforts to force the umpire to err, etc. – the spirit of the game gets sullied in various ways. Recalling a batsman who has been lawfully dismissed does nothing to heal this injured spirit.

  • Steve Howe on September 3, 2012, 8:49 GMT

    Quite right. If we outlaw Mankading, we'll see batsman backing up by half the length of the pitch - and how will the "Spirit of Cricket" regard that?

  • Grizzzly on September 3, 2012, 3:50 GMT

    And how many of the ill informed posters above have actually seen the video of the incident ?

    Kartik behaved like a petulant child. Barrow was neither seeking to steal a run, nor gain any advantage. He was "run out" only because Murali took it upon himself to 'sell him a dummy', in an entirely pre-meditated manner.

    Anyone really think that MK would have tried doing that to a seasoned Professional such as Trescothick, or Compton ? - Thought not.

    Grubby, underhand & as close to cheating as it is possible to get.

  • growltiger on September 2, 2012, 20:12 GMT

    All the reports say that Barrow had been persistently backing up too soon, and Kartik warned him. The thing that was always supposed to be against the spirit was for the bowler to run him out WITHOUT warning. The reason for that was that the bowler would usually have established an informal expectation that he wouldn't do this, by implicitly accepting that a degree of anticipatory backing up was fair. Running out without warning felt like cheating, because the non-striker was being lulled into believing that he could cheat, just a bit. WARNING the batsman that you will run him out if he goes too far, or does it again, has always been accepted. The fuss that was made at Taunton does not square with the fact that Kartik had issued a warning.

  • nish on September 2, 2012, 18:55 GMT

    If it should have been called a dead ball, since it was after the bowling action was started,isn't that the umpire's job .... rather than giving it out and then pressurising the captain to withdraw the appeal. If the umpires felt it was out rather than a dead ball...then it was a fair wicket

  • John Holder on September 1, 2012, 23:44 GMT

    The sole reason for a non striker leaving his ground early is to gain an unfair advantage. This is blatant cheating and he can only be run out while the bowler is in his run up. Why is he leaving his ground so early? It is total nonsense and hypocrisy to criticise a bowler for running out a cheating batsman, especially after he had been warned. If anyone is acting against the spirit of cricket it must be the offending non striker.

  • ElBeeDubya on September 1, 2012, 21:11 GMT

    Another excellent piece with a roaring end. Well done!

  • Raja on September 1, 2012, 13:58 GMT

    Great article. Is appealing when a batsman is not out , batsman not walking when clearly out or wasting time by fielding /batting team in order to end sessions in the spirit of the game? What about use of vaseline whilst bowling or using murray mints in Ashes? When a batsman has been warned and then wanders out breaking the rule he deserves to be out.

  • bala on September 1, 2012, 13:57 GMT

    Why don't these players who never tarnish the "spirit" of the game walk whenever they edge one to the keeper instead of blatantly cheating the people and continuing to bat. I guess that's within the spirit of the game. Shame on the captain on issuing an unnecessary apology to Trescothik and co.He should have grown a set of balls and stood by his team mate in time of need.

  • Divya on September 1, 2012, 13:38 GMT

    According to me, 'the spirit of cricket' is an over-rated concept. If you don't cheat, that's the spirit of cricket. Did Kartik cheat by dismissing Barlow the way he did? The fact that 'the spirit of cricket' is invoked so many times only shows that the game of cricket is still stuck in the 18th century mindset when it was first played (does the MCC STILL believe that it lives in the 18th century?). If cricket does not change its mindset or outlook as per the 21st century, it has no scope for globalization. No wonder, Americans make fun of the game.

  • Santosh J S on September 3, 2012, 9:22 GMT

    Well said Kimber. This nonsense about 'spirit of the game' being used in such narrow terms needs to be pointed out. And Mankading does not fall under that category, prior warning or not.

    And agree with your comment about the lack of understanding about what constitutes fairness: to it i would add appealing for catches that are not, blind-sided fieldsmen appealing for LBWs, sustained efforts to force the umpire to err, etc. – the spirit of the game gets sullied in various ways. Recalling a batsman who has been lawfully dismissed does nothing to heal this injured spirit.

  • Steve Howe on September 3, 2012, 8:49 GMT

    Quite right. If we outlaw Mankading, we'll see batsman backing up by half the length of the pitch - and how will the "Spirit of Cricket" regard that?

  • Grizzzly on September 3, 2012, 3:50 GMT

    And how many of the ill informed posters above have actually seen the video of the incident ?

    Kartik behaved like a petulant child. Barrow was neither seeking to steal a run, nor gain any advantage. He was "run out" only because Murali took it upon himself to 'sell him a dummy', in an entirely pre-meditated manner.

    Anyone really think that MK would have tried doing that to a seasoned Professional such as Trescothick, or Compton ? - Thought not.

    Grubby, underhand & as close to cheating as it is possible to get.

  • growltiger on September 2, 2012, 20:12 GMT

    All the reports say that Barrow had been persistently backing up too soon, and Kartik warned him. The thing that was always supposed to be against the spirit was for the bowler to run him out WITHOUT warning. The reason for that was that the bowler would usually have established an informal expectation that he wouldn't do this, by implicitly accepting that a degree of anticipatory backing up was fair. Running out without warning felt like cheating, because the non-striker was being lulled into believing that he could cheat, just a bit. WARNING the batsman that you will run him out if he goes too far, or does it again, has always been accepted. The fuss that was made at Taunton does not square with the fact that Kartik had issued a warning.

  • nish on September 2, 2012, 18:55 GMT

    If it should have been called a dead ball, since it was after the bowling action was started,isn't that the umpire's job .... rather than giving it out and then pressurising the captain to withdraw the appeal. If the umpires felt it was out rather than a dead ball...then it was a fair wicket

  • John Holder on September 1, 2012, 23:44 GMT

    The sole reason for a non striker leaving his ground early is to gain an unfair advantage. This is blatant cheating and he can only be run out while the bowler is in his run up. Why is he leaving his ground so early? It is total nonsense and hypocrisy to criticise a bowler for running out a cheating batsman, especially after he had been warned. If anyone is acting against the spirit of cricket it must be the offending non striker.

  • ElBeeDubya on September 1, 2012, 21:11 GMT

    Another excellent piece with a roaring end. Well done!

  • Raja on September 1, 2012, 13:58 GMT

    Great article. Is appealing when a batsman is not out , batsman not walking when clearly out or wasting time by fielding /batting team in order to end sessions in the spirit of the game? What about use of vaseline whilst bowling or using murray mints in Ashes? When a batsman has been warned and then wanders out breaking the rule he deserves to be out.

  • bala on September 1, 2012, 13:57 GMT

    Why don't these players who never tarnish the "spirit" of the game walk whenever they edge one to the keeper instead of blatantly cheating the people and continuing to bat. I guess that's within the spirit of the game. Shame on the captain on issuing an unnecessary apology to Trescothik and co.He should have grown a set of balls and stood by his team mate in time of need.

  • Divya on September 1, 2012, 13:38 GMT

    According to me, 'the spirit of cricket' is an over-rated concept. If you don't cheat, that's the spirit of cricket. Did Kartik cheat by dismissing Barlow the way he did? The fact that 'the spirit of cricket' is invoked so many times only shows that the game of cricket is still stuck in the 18th century mindset when it was first played (does the MCC STILL believe that it lives in the 18th century?). If cricket does not change its mindset or outlook as per the 21st century, it has no scope for globalization. No wonder, Americans make fun of the game.

  • Ashutosh Sinha on September 1, 2012, 13:05 GMT

    Very well written indeed. Its only the bowlers who are questioned when such an incident occurs. Why doesn't anyone ask the batsman what was he doing once he had been warned. The last para is the icing on the cake. One of the best lines written on the spirit of cricket

  • Anonymous on September 1, 2012, 12:01 GMT

    Great writing kimber.

  • Madan on September 1, 2012, 11:49 GMT

    Well said. I have never understood why a batsman cannot wait until the bowler's arm has crossed the shoulder before backing up. Invoking the spirit of cricket doesn't make sense. The batsman is attempting to gain an unfair advantage over the opposition and the bowler is within his rights to stop him from doing so.

  • p g vasan on September 1, 2012, 9:36 GMT

    Oh very well said Mr Kimber.Batsmen should atleast stop cheating now. Umpires should declare them out without seeking confirmation from the player or skipper

  • Vimalan on September 1, 2012, 8:48 GMT

    beautifully put..When Kapil did the same thing to Peter Kristan after several warnings, the same outcry happened..its the batsman who to be blamed for the whole thing. otherwise its nothing but bullying in the name of spirit

  • yasser on September 1, 2012, 7:15 GMT

    very good article. i agree 100% with everything word

  • Saif on September 1, 2012, 6:46 GMT

    A certain prejudice operates in cricket. Call it battism (or bowlism if you wish). That which hurts the batsman is against the spirit of the game, while that which hurts the bowler/fielder/keeper isn't.

  • Denrich on September 1, 2012, 5:09 GMT

    I am not a cricket expert however I thought in similar lines. People hould be more through and honest in their opinion. Batsman warned commits mistake again, he deserves to be out. well done for your honest opinion

  • Ankit Chandra on September 1, 2012, 3:49 GMT

    Very well written. My point exactly. It is rather dumb and 'ungentlemanly' of the foul-criers.

  • Anonymous on September 1, 2012, 2:49 GMT

    A piece that i wish i had written.

  • njr1330 on September 1, 2012, 0:51 GMT

    The crucial thing, is the presence or absence of a warning. If one is given, then I'm afraid it's then the batsman's tough luck.

  • youngkeepersdad on August 31, 2012, 23:16 GMT

    Couldn't agree more.

  • Tich on August 31, 2012, 23:06 GMT

    Well said.

  • somsupporter55 on August 31, 2012, 20:36 GMT

    Jarrod, the bowler trots in, the batsman sets off and will pass the crease as the bowler bowls, but, the bowler stops and the batsman's momentum carries him on so the bowler can run him out.

    Any you think that is cricket? The game will become a farce if more bowlers started behaving like Kartik did...

    It's said Barrow was warned. No one in the crowd saw that. We saw the run out, we didn't see the warning. County cricket crowds (mostly older and mostly sparse) don't get upset without a reason.

    Btw, I was there, you were not....

  • the herecric on August 31, 2012, 19:35 GMT

    completely agree - except in the situation where the non-striker, having left early, has a rabid ground squirrel gnaw off his achilles tendon leaving him writhing a few yards from the crease and the bails are dislodged. in such a situation the spirit of cricket may demand invocation.

  • Anonymous on August 31, 2012, 19:03 GMT

    Gr8 one....too much have been said about spirit of cricket....and it is within the law....double standards

  • Prashant on August 31, 2012, 18:29 GMT

    The very well made point. The game is too batsmen friendly to begin with without giving them the benefit of cheating and stealing a run. No laws broken... no fuss.

  • Edward Howard on August 31, 2012, 18:14 GMT

    Never understood why a batsman backing up is considered entitled to a warning. In my view he is seeking to gain an advantage and I can see no reason why he should not be run out. Maybe just as well that I bowl left arm round the wicket so I would never see a batsman doing it!

  • Paul, Somerset on August 31, 2012, 17:36 GMT

    Oh come on. Barrow wasn't even out. He kept his bat behind the line right up until Kartik landed in his delivery stride. Kartik then deliberately cheated by failing to deliver the ball and turning to take off the bails instead.

    By this time it was a dead ball, but the umpire ignorantly upheld the appeal.

    Immediately before the incident, Kartik had sarcastically applauded Barrow after he'd smashed him to the boundary. Presumably he reckoned (correctly) that he would get away with such blatant cheating against the youngster. I would like to have seen him try it against Pete Trego at the other end.

    Watch the video if you want proof. It appears that Kimber, like 90% of other bloggers, hasn't done so.

  • Gunn, Moore on August 31, 2012, 17:25 GMT

    Well put, with one exception. Cricket was not a "grubby disgusting sport". Well atleast not any more than other sport (and the world generally). And especially when viewed from the enlightened vantage point of 2012.

  • Anonymous on August 31, 2012, 16:51 GMT

    Having actually been at the game where Kartik-gate happened, I think the context of the dismissal is important. Kartik had already incensed the Somerset players and the crowd by his excessive celebrations when taking earlier wickets. Then, following the run out, Batty in particular escalated matters by ironically clapping the crowd and indulging in some pretty unseemly discussion with them on the boundary. Far from appearing sheepish or contrite he appeared to be confrontational. How much better if he had had the class to recall Barrow. But he didn't and Surrey appeared to want to win at any price. As it was they batted out for a draw.

  • Sticksman on August 31, 2012, 16:35 GMT

    Great article Jarrod. Murali Kartik did absolutely nothing wrong. I play club cricket and we would do exactly the same in the same situation. I'm a batsman and if it happened to me, I'd be disappointed with my own stupidity!!! The English media have made enough of this. Lets move on.

  • Prasad on August 31, 2012, 16:24 GMT

    Well said! Totally agree with it. Basically, if you're taking a run, you can be run out. Whats spirit got to do with anything?

  • Amit on August 31, 2012, 16:12 GMT

    Well said. It has become fashionable to use the phrase "spirit of cricket" with absolutely no one to vouch for what it actually means. If its within the rules, how can it possibly not be within the spirit of fair play? The batsman cheated, was dismissed as per the rules and yet it's kartik and his skipper being booed. How stupid is that?

  • tonysmalltoes on August 31, 2012, 15:31 GMT

    It's just odd that it happened in this situation. Barrow really wasn't trying to steal a yard any more than every other batsmen playing that day. It's just really daft.

    Maybe after 18 odd years of trotting up to bowl and watching batsmen wander half a pace out of their ground Murali finally cracked. Maybe he'd been desperate to do this all his career, or maybe he and Batty just lost it.

    Either way, I guess batsmen around the country will have to take special care backing up this weekend.

  • AB on August 31, 2012, 15:14 GMT

    Spirit be damned, it was the wrong decision, pure and simple. Freezeframe the video: at the point Kartik illegally stops his action (front foot down, bowling arm already above shoulder height) Barrow's bat was STILL grounded behind the crease. He wasn't stealing anything, not even an inch. He only steps out of his crease at the point the ball should have been in the air, which is perfectly legal by anyone's definition.

    Umpire should have called dead ball, not out.

  • Siraj on August 31, 2012, 15:09 GMT

    If you look at the picture, he has taken one step out of the crease, ONE STEP, not half way down the wicket, pathetic

  • cricket-india on August 31, 2012, 15:00 GMT

    soon we'll see run-outs and stumpings also as against the spirit of the game

  • Annz n Dipz on August 31, 2012, 14:38 GMT

    the umpires are supposed to give the correct decision on appeals and not give moral lectures! they were not within their rights to even requst the captain to withdraw the appeal! can a batsman request an umpire to withdraw his decision? then i dont understand the how the umpires can do the same! leaving the crease before delivery repeatedly is cheating and thus against the spirit of the game. running the batsmen out after giving a warning is actually upholding the spirit!

  • Anonymous on August 31, 2012, 14:36 GMT

    Couldn't agree more..perhaps i could but i'm not sure

  • Guru on August 31, 2012, 14:33 GMT

    Next time may the Spirit of Cricket argument be brought in, when a wicketkeeper stumps a batsman leaving his crease, for failure to warn the batsman.

  • sathish on August 31, 2012, 14:23 GMT

    Great article.

  • yagambaram on August 31, 2012, 13:53 GMT

    Nice, a sane voice at last!!! Thank you Jarod Kimber. Lets not forget it's acceptable to wait for the umpire to give u out when u know u are out too. Where is the outrage there.

  • Bertbean on August 31, 2012, 13:51 GMT

    Interesting and well-argued article but if the spirit of cricket is to have any meaning at all surely it must be that the game is played within the behaviour expected by those watching the game. This my be different in different parts of the world. Murali Kartik singularly failed in this regard yesterday. Spectators in England, and elsewhere, may hold romantic and irrational views on what constitutes the spirit of cricket but that is not to say that those views are are unimportant or without merit. The spirit of cricket will survive, as it always does, but only because people care about it and are prepared to defend it.

  • YP on August 31, 2012, 13:29 GMT

    Did you see the dismissal? As it appears he was out of his ground by a foot or so not yards, Karthik was in his delivery stride Back foot planted, arm nearing the top of his delivery, and pulled out. Had Barrow been 3-4 yards ot then no question but 12 inches. really.....

  • dhileep on August 31, 2012, 13:24 GMT

    About time,Jarrod, we dealt with these little allowances for the batsmen in the modern game of cricket.That it took an Indian to sort this in the 1950s and 60 years on another Indian spinner is starting a debate on this issue, hopefully the stigma attached to this sort of runouts will fade away in the years to come when more bowlers do this on a regular basis.

  • Kevin on August 31, 2012, 13:16 GMT

    Ordinarily I'd agree with you but, in this case, there is the back story of the ill feeling surrounding Kartik's move from Somerset to Surrey at the end of last season. If batsmen backing-up stray out of their creas so often, why hasn't Kartik mankaded anybody else before this late stage of the season?

  • Arpit Agrawal on August 31, 2012, 13:09 GMT

    great article.. but first of all this article should be given to all the captains like dhoni who go on to withdraw the appeal and eventually lose the match just because they want to be good boys in the eyes of the stupid public...

  • sanjay on August 31, 2012, 13:03 GMT

    Well written! Totally agree with this. Its in the rule books for a reason. I never understood the reason for giving a warning though. If you can be stumped for absent-mindedly stepping out of the crease due to overbalancing(re: Matt prior stumping of Morkel) then why not at the other end? In fact,IMHO, Mankad is a less of a grey area since the runner is obviously gaining advantage by his aggressive backing up!

  • phani on August 31, 2012, 12:44 GMT

    You hit the nail in the head. Great article.

  • cherenkov on August 31, 2012, 12:43 GMT

    Mindblowingly brilliant! Thanks for the education about Basil D'Oliveira. March on Kimber! I have never read a better argument for the much quoted "spirit" than this:

    "The real spirit of cricket isn't a bunch of pious words written by some champion batsman, it's Basil D'Oliveira wanting to play against his own country who didn't want him, Bob Blair walking out to avoid the follow on after his fiancé had died, Rick McCosker batting with a broken jaw, the arm bands of Henry Olonga and Andy Flower and the fact that Thilan Samaraweera plays on despite being shot by a terrorist while representing his country."

  • bharat on August 31, 2012, 12:36 GMT

    man tht last para made me very senti... though a very gr8 article

  • SuzyQ on August 31, 2012, 12:32 GMT

    Fantastic article.

    The laws are loaded against the bowler anyway and every amendment gives another piece of the pie to the batsmen. When the poor bowler finally and very legally gets a batsmen out the mollycoddled batsman has the cheek to invoke some obscure 'spirit' to protect his a**e. As the article says it IS cheating to leave the crease early. Why don't more people see that? Athletes are disqualified for a false start - they don't even get another chance. Wake up Batsmen, don't be a wimp!

  • Moemf on August 31, 2012, 12:31 GMT

    I seem to recall Peter Kirsten being Mankadded by Kapil Dev in the early 1990's. The situation was a bit different in that Dev did not first warn Kirsten, but as a South African I remember being annoyed by it. However, as you mentioned above, backing up is accepted but Mankading isn't although backing up is just as severe a breach of sportmanship.

    If a batsman backs-up to far or too early then he must accept if he's run out...end of story!

  • The Jacket on August 31, 2012, 12:28 GMT

    Perfectly put.

  • Tigg on August 31, 2012, 12:27 GMT

    Nothing wrong with running out a cheating batsman. Taunting the crowd after was a mistake, but Mankading is fine.

  • Sigismund on August 31, 2012, 12:21 GMT

    You are quite right again, Sadist. In the MCC Laws, this falls under the section entitled "Batsmen stealing a run". It really is so upsetting how many people get uppity when they don't actually know the rules.

  • ab on August 31, 2012, 12:20 GMT

    Absolutely right - he'd been warned and should have listened.

    Has Trescothick ever not-walked? Has he ever slowed down the over rate? Instructuted bowlers to go down the leg-side?

    Pious clap-trap - am only surprised at how supinely Surrey is behaving. He was warned. Perhaps Trescothick will not object if the bowler bowls from 15 yards?

  • sk on August 31, 2012, 12:17 GMT

    I agree with your point, especially since Kartik did warn the batsman. If people want to complain about the spirit of the game then maybe they should look at Morne Morkel being stumped by Prior while standing up during the third test between England and South Africa. He wasn't falling over losing his balance. He didn't leave his crease dancing down the pitch. Prior merely stood at the stumps for seconds wating for the shifting of Morkel's weight while standing up. Now that can fall under the umbrella of "not in the spirit of the game".

  • V for Vendetta on August 31, 2012, 12:16 GMT

    Finally a great article on this nonsense about the spirit of cricket regarding Mankading. Barrow was given a warning and he as Kimber says, was in a sense breaking the rules himself. So why does everyone have to get agitated after it was Barrow's fault initially? Kartik was well within his rights to run him out. I think it's time to start thinking what the spirit of cricket really is...the examples mentioned by Kimber are pretty good ones.

  • John on August 31, 2012, 12:16 GMT

    Non bunching undergarments should be standard issue for county matches.

  • Andy Plowright on August 31, 2012, 12:15 GMT

    Jarrod, have you seen the footage? It's up on the ECB videos page. Watching it actually clarifies that it is a mistake by Kartik that is compounded by the umpires. Law 42.15 states:

    "15. Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon possible."

    Kartik has clearly entered his delivery. He even places the front front down, spins on that, and removes the bails. By the letter of the law, he has actually aborted the delivery, it should be called a dead ball, and Barrow should not be out.

  • Sunil on August 31, 2012, 12:13 GMT

    Agree whole-heartedly with the views expressed in this article. It's time this selective invoking of the "spirit of cricket" nonsense is confined to the dust-bin. Fantastic examples of what the real spirit of cricket is!

  • Jay Hanmantgad on August 31, 2012, 12:12 GMT

    Trust, spirit, team play - they are all states of being with 'Mutual' with a capital M thrown in. If Barrow went for a stroll - that's his choice. Why make laws and whine later?

  • maurice on August 31, 2012, 12:09 GMT

    No Sympathy.... For examply in other sports...Golf for instance... how tight the rules are... you are on a par 5 about to hit your second shot, address the ball & it moves two inches... Two shot penalty, replace the ball & start again...yet you are still maybe 300 yards from the hole!

    Does it make a difference, the 2 inches, no. but Rules are rules.

  • S.R.Viswanathan on August 31, 2012, 12:07 GMT

    The "spirit of cricket" is the most misused term in the game. And surprisingly eminent cricketers seem to think that a batsman should not be run out when he is backing too far, even after he is warned by the bowler. Isn't that ridiculous?

  • Anonymous on August 31, 2012, 12:05 GMT

    Great article, Jarrod. Hope Trescothick reads this and shuts up.

  • Albert on August 31, 2012, 11:54 GMT

    Couldnt agree with you more. The spirit of cricket is searched for in all the wrong places. Its there in the flintoff-brett lee handshake at the end of that epic test match. Seek...and you shall find ;)

  • Sriram on August 31, 2012, 11:53 GMT

    So where is the spirit of cricket when a batsman can start walking when the bowler has not even started his run up and he can be middle of the pitch when the ball is delivered. How nonsensical is that? MANKADING is righ and is only their to not allow batsmen to cheat.

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

    Hear hear.

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

    Totally agree. Nothing annoys me more than batsman consistently doing this even after being warned, hiding behind the spirit of cricket. It is just simple cheating!

  • Lokesh on August 31, 2012, 11:27 GMT

    Great point Kimber. Will settle those unspirited fans.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Lokesh on August 31, 2012, 11:27 GMT

    Great point Kimber. Will settle those unspirited fans.

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

    Totally agree. Nothing annoys me more than batsman consistently doing this even after being warned, hiding behind the spirit of cricket. It is just simple cheating!

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

    Hear hear.

  • Sriram on August 31, 2012, 11:53 GMT

    So where is the spirit of cricket when a batsman can start walking when the bowler has not even started his run up and he can be middle of the pitch when the ball is delivered. How nonsensical is that? MANKADING is righ and is only their to not allow batsmen to cheat.

  • Albert on August 31, 2012, 11:54 GMT

    Couldnt agree with you more. The spirit of cricket is searched for in all the wrong places. Its there in the flintoff-brett lee handshake at the end of that epic test match. Seek...and you shall find ;)

  • Anonymous on August 31, 2012, 12:05 GMT

    Great article, Jarrod. Hope Trescothick reads this and shuts up.

  • S.R.Viswanathan on August 31, 2012, 12:07 GMT

    The "spirit of cricket" is the most misused term in the game. And surprisingly eminent cricketers seem to think that a batsman should not be run out when he is backing too far, even after he is warned by the bowler. Isn't that ridiculous?

  • maurice on August 31, 2012, 12:09 GMT

    No Sympathy.... For examply in other sports...Golf for instance... how tight the rules are... you are on a par 5 about to hit your second shot, address the ball & it moves two inches... Two shot penalty, replace the ball & start again...yet you are still maybe 300 yards from the hole!

    Does it make a difference, the 2 inches, no. but Rules are rules.

  • Jay Hanmantgad on August 31, 2012, 12:12 GMT

    Trust, spirit, team play - they are all states of being with 'Mutual' with a capital M thrown in. If Barrow went for a stroll - that's his choice. Why make laws and whine later?

  • Sunil on August 31, 2012, 12:13 GMT

    Agree whole-heartedly with the views expressed in this article. It's time this selective invoking of the "spirit of cricket" nonsense is confined to the dust-bin. Fantastic examples of what the real spirit of cricket is!