Australia v Sri Lanka, Commonwealth Bank Series, Hobart February 23, 2012

Jayawardene warns Thirimanne over backing-up too far

97

Sri Lanka's captain Mahela Jayawardene has warned the batsman Lahiru Thirimanne to keep a check on how far he backs up in Friday's match against Australia. However, Thirimanne might be free to indulge his habit of gaining ground after Australia's captain, Michael Clarke, said he did not believe it should be legal for a bowler to mankad a batsman.

Thirimanne was lucky to be given a reprieve in Tuesday's game against India, when he was mankaded by the spinner R Ashwin, who noticed Thirimanne was backing up a long way out of his crease. The India captain Virender Sehwag withdrew the appeal to avoid criticism over what has traditionally been seen as an unsportsmanlike method of dismissal.

However, Thirimanne did not appear to learn his lesson and continued to leave his crease before the bowler had entered his delivery stride, risking a run-out and gaining an advantage over the fielders by cutting down the distance required to complete a run. Jayawardene said he had discussed the issue with Thirimanne since Tuesday's game and he was confident there would be no repeats.

"I have [spoken to him]," Jayawardene said. "I think there was a bit of fault in him as well. He's a young lad and I'm sure he'll learn from that. We've spoken, definitely.

"I think he can take a start but it's just where he's leaving the crease is probably a bit unfair. He can probably hold himself a bit longer and then take a start, I don't think that's a problem. It's just him understanding exactly what he can do and what he can't do."

The ICC changed its playing conditions last year to allow a bowler to mankad a batsman any time before he had completed the usual delivery swing of his arm. Prior to that, the ICC rule stated that a bowler could only attempt to run out a batsman backing up at the non-striker's end if he did so before he had entered his delivery stride.

Clarke will have a difficult decision to make if Thirimanne continues to back up too far in Friday's match. "I hope he decides to stay in his crease," Clarke said. "I'm glad that nothing has come of it. It's a part of the game I don't like. I don't the mankad rule at all. I don't think you should be able to mankad.

"But in saying that, if somebody is going to be a long way outside their crease, you would hope that by warning them they would understand that the bowler or the fielding captain has asked the batsman to stay in his crease. If he continues to do that, it is in the rules that you can be out like that. But I hope we don't have to worry about it."

Asked if he would have withdrawn the appeal if he was in Sehwag's position, Clarke said: "I'll find out when I'm in that position. Hopefully I'm not."

Sri Lanka went on to win Tuesday's match against India and now have the opportunity to take top spot on the Commonwealth Bank Series points table if they can beat Australia in Hobart. They are coming off a tie and two consecutive victories and Jayawardene said the challenge would be not to fall away after a couple of strong performances.

"After the last couple of games we came back strongly into the tournament so the challenge is to try and be consistent, play the way we've been playing, and make sure we handle certain situations better than the opposition," he said. "We've been quite happy with the progress of the team."

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on February 25, 2012, 8:04 GMT

    Sehwag & Tendulkar acted like Gentlemen. There is fault in Lahiru's behaviour, we admit. However, according to many Indian Fans, India might lose the way to the CB finals because of this incident and the behaviour of related Umpires.

  • thinktank1 on February 25, 2012, 6:35 GMT

    Media wasted precious time of 3 captains by asking such silly questions..

  • bobmartin on February 24, 2012, 10:06 GMT

    As usual, this thread is full of conflicting comments, ideas and opinions. And as usual they are a mixture of those from people who know and care about the game, and those who prove by their inane remarks that they know very little about it. If as some are suggesting cricket is a gentlemens' game, then in my understanding of the term, it means quite simply, playing by the Laws and/or Rules. If you transgress, then you should expect to be punished. Whether or not you agree with it, this particular Rule was introduced for the express purpose of preventin the batsman from indulging in unfair play, In all other cases where the Rules or Laws are broken, there is no second chance given, why should this offence be any different. As my old sportsmaster once told me "Play by the rules or don't bother playing"

  • madras_boy on February 24, 2012, 8:37 GMT

    Kapil did mankad Gary Kirsten which i remember even now !!! Is he not a sportsman or a Gentleman ??? Comeon Sehwag, you need some reasons ... Itz high time for Sehwag to play a Ranji Season ... or he has to skip IPL to play in English County to improve his batting... He has come a cropper since the last England tour... In simple, he should be given REST in indian terms !!!

  • on February 24, 2012, 7:37 GMT

    Jayawardene's comments: "Thirimanne was a BIT AT FAULT .." are you kidding me, man. Just because you are the captain, you can't just take up for any nonsense. That's hypocritical. And also, to say, "HE'S JUST A LAD.." come on, give me a break! This is a gentlemen's game. If you want others to behave like a gentlemen with you, then you behave one like yourself. You can't be exempt ...

    The umpires should not even consult the fielding team captain, the next time around. He should straight away give him out - that's what is called being fair.

    It's nonsense that mankading should not be legal by Clarke. He is still a pup in his behaviour. When a bowler can't undue advantage by a fraction and is no-balled, why should the batsmen be exempt from that rule?

  • on February 24, 2012, 7:23 GMT

    India withrew the appeal becuase it was unsportsmanlike act...what happened when u got Inzamam out...........do u remember that........Worst unsportsmanlike behavior ever.

  • Damo23 on February 24, 2012, 3:56 GMT

    It was good of the Indian leadership to withdraw the appeal. I'm not sure why the bowlers didn't keep a closer eye on Thirimanne thereafter, though. Having said that, however, I think there could be a case for a difference in leniency in respect to a Mankad attempt towards a batsman who is routinely leaving the crease before the ball is bowled, compared to the case where a bowler might run the batsman out by surprise when the batsman expects that the bowler will release the ball.

  • on February 24, 2012, 3:27 GMT

    So those who are shouting about the umpire not giving OUT are those who should be in the elite panel of umpires. After all you guys seem to come up with the most logical and practical suggestions after your substantial experience in playing the game in the international level. There is a very REAL line between supporting a team and blaming third parties for a very poor performance by your team. So please spare us your hollow comments and stop trying to pin the loss of your team to A solitary incident. A good team wins even though some decisions don't go their way. That's what defines the character of a team. THAT'S LIFE. So grow up!!!

  • on February 24, 2012, 3:07 GMT

    1. for people who are saying "we are against to Mankad rule" - just imagine if there is no such rule, and batsman starts walking 5 to 10 yards before ball is even bowled, will it make sense?

    2. while taking two run, if batsman short of his crease even by 1 millimetre, we consider it as short run. same rule should be applied if batsman leave the crease before ball is bowled. if 1 millimetre also counts while taking a run, how can non-stiker takes advantage by 1-2 yards?

    3. When ICC made a clear rule about mankad, umpired MUST straight away give it out. Consulting Veeru is wrong.

  • on February 24, 2012, 2:57 GMT

    This is only a storm in a tea cup but as far as Indians concerned its a Tsunami.

  • on February 25, 2012, 8:04 GMT

    Sehwag & Tendulkar acted like Gentlemen. There is fault in Lahiru's behaviour, we admit. However, according to many Indian Fans, India might lose the way to the CB finals because of this incident and the behaviour of related Umpires.

  • thinktank1 on February 25, 2012, 6:35 GMT

    Media wasted precious time of 3 captains by asking such silly questions..

  • bobmartin on February 24, 2012, 10:06 GMT

    As usual, this thread is full of conflicting comments, ideas and opinions. And as usual they are a mixture of those from people who know and care about the game, and those who prove by their inane remarks that they know very little about it. If as some are suggesting cricket is a gentlemens' game, then in my understanding of the term, it means quite simply, playing by the Laws and/or Rules. If you transgress, then you should expect to be punished. Whether or not you agree with it, this particular Rule was introduced for the express purpose of preventin the batsman from indulging in unfair play, In all other cases where the Rules or Laws are broken, there is no second chance given, why should this offence be any different. As my old sportsmaster once told me "Play by the rules or don't bother playing"

  • madras_boy on February 24, 2012, 8:37 GMT

    Kapil did mankad Gary Kirsten which i remember even now !!! Is he not a sportsman or a Gentleman ??? Comeon Sehwag, you need some reasons ... Itz high time for Sehwag to play a Ranji Season ... or he has to skip IPL to play in English County to improve his batting... He has come a cropper since the last England tour... In simple, he should be given REST in indian terms !!!

  • on February 24, 2012, 7:37 GMT

    Jayawardene's comments: "Thirimanne was a BIT AT FAULT .." are you kidding me, man. Just because you are the captain, you can't just take up for any nonsense. That's hypocritical. And also, to say, "HE'S JUST A LAD.." come on, give me a break! This is a gentlemen's game. If you want others to behave like a gentlemen with you, then you behave one like yourself. You can't be exempt ...

    The umpires should not even consult the fielding team captain, the next time around. He should straight away give him out - that's what is called being fair.

    It's nonsense that mankading should not be legal by Clarke. He is still a pup in his behaviour. When a bowler can't undue advantage by a fraction and is no-balled, why should the batsmen be exempt from that rule?

  • on February 24, 2012, 7:23 GMT

    India withrew the appeal becuase it was unsportsmanlike act...what happened when u got Inzamam out...........do u remember that........Worst unsportsmanlike behavior ever.

  • Damo23 on February 24, 2012, 3:56 GMT

    It was good of the Indian leadership to withdraw the appeal. I'm not sure why the bowlers didn't keep a closer eye on Thirimanne thereafter, though. Having said that, however, I think there could be a case for a difference in leniency in respect to a Mankad attempt towards a batsman who is routinely leaving the crease before the ball is bowled, compared to the case where a bowler might run the batsman out by surprise when the batsman expects that the bowler will release the ball.

  • on February 24, 2012, 3:27 GMT

    So those who are shouting about the umpire not giving OUT are those who should be in the elite panel of umpires. After all you guys seem to come up with the most logical and practical suggestions after your substantial experience in playing the game in the international level. There is a very REAL line between supporting a team and blaming third parties for a very poor performance by your team. So please spare us your hollow comments and stop trying to pin the loss of your team to A solitary incident. A good team wins even though some decisions don't go their way. That's what defines the character of a team. THAT'S LIFE. So grow up!!!

  • on February 24, 2012, 3:07 GMT

    1. for people who are saying "we are against to Mankad rule" - just imagine if there is no such rule, and batsman starts walking 5 to 10 yards before ball is even bowled, will it make sense?

    2. while taking two run, if batsman short of his crease even by 1 millimetre, we consider it as short run. same rule should be applied if batsman leave the crease before ball is bowled. if 1 millimetre also counts while taking a run, how can non-stiker takes advantage by 1-2 yards?

    3. When ICC made a clear rule about mankad, umpired MUST straight away give it out. Consulting Veeru is wrong.

  • on February 24, 2012, 2:57 GMT

    This is only a storm in a tea cup but as far as Indians concerned its a Tsunami.

  • on February 24, 2012, 2:55 GMT

    Make some sense when you speak Mr Jayawardane. - "I don't think that's a problem. It's just him understanding exactly what he can do and what he can't do" wht the hell is this...without understadning this basic stuff, how any players comes to INTERNATIONAL level...its even known at gully level.

  • SLfan on February 24, 2012, 1:44 GMT

    @ jango_moh - "and i still dont understand why Lankan fans hate indians"....Friend, it's the other way around. Please check past Cricinfo articles. We're just trying to defend ourselves from unfair criticisms of Indians...Have you ever seen Lankan fans argue with fans of any other country (other than India) ? But I'm sure you definitely have seen that Indian fans ALWAYS argue with other fans, when there's an important tournament is playing...So I think that clearly explains the common factor of every argument in Cricinfo.

  • on February 24, 2012, 1:43 GMT

    This is not Acceptable at all mankad Rule is a one of the most worst Rule by a ICC. ICC should look into this rule again.Because It is clear once Bowler is not released the ball we called it as DEAD BALL. Then according to the rules in DEAD ball no one could be given as OUT. So This rule is totally violating Sprite of the Cricket. perhaps ICC might then allows to run out both the batsmen at the same time . Then gentlemen if ICC allows that rule what if happen to Sprite of Cricket?????

  • Ameega on February 24, 2012, 1:40 GMT

    For everyone saying umpires did something wrong in Thrimanne case, adopt 'Dhoni Theory' of DRS. Umpires do mistakes, and we have to accept that. Do not look at camera replays again and again and do not frustrate yourself!

  • on February 24, 2012, 1:39 GMT

    Good on ya Micheal. We still have some gentlemen left in our beautiful game. I am not bashing Ashwin. I have seen him trying to do a similar act in one of the early ODIs or in tests.SL hope you will win today against my other favourite team. Good luck to the both teams . May the best team win.

  • Rooboy on February 24, 2012, 1:08 GMT

    I do not get the controversy over 'mankading' at all. If a batsman is out of his crease and a fielder removes the bails, that should be out, regardless of circumstances. Why even the need to give a warning? I know the etiquette is that it's not done, but why? Batsmen are trying to get an advantage by backing up, so they should be fair game if they take it too far. Just don't see what the problem with this is

  • NairUSA on February 24, 2012, 0:53 GMT

    Clark must be joking! Aussies will be the first ones to jump in on any such opportunities. Thirimanne can kiss his wicket goodbye the first time he leaves his crease. Clark and company will always try to win at any cost, like their old captains have always done, even bowling underarm LOL

  • Cannuck on February 24, 2012, 0:19 GMT

    @Nampally: As you noted I agree that the blame should be on the umps, as he was clearly out of the crease. Further even Mahela agrees that his player was at fault. BUT you cannot disregard that there's a grey area in this issue since the umps them selves were reluctant to enforce it & some players (Clark etc.) seem to have reservation over it. So it's worth some discussion over it, even think of alternate ideas, which is simply what Dashgar & my self have done. We are not disputing the issue, but just looking at it in other ways. @ Srinivasan Narayanan: It's clear what a dead ball is,. One that is not delivered by the bowler. Theoretically this is not any different to a bowler getting into stride & not deliver, in order to break the wicket. That's all I pointed out, & why I think purists don't like it. You can't get someone out in between overs or deliveries, as it's not in play. If you go by what a dead ball is then you have to relook at the new rule that allows a mankad. Just saying!

  • jango_moh on February 23, 2012, 23:05 GMT

    this is such a NON ISSUE!!! the truth of the matter is, if the rule has changed regarding this, the umpires should have given it OUT, and then if the fielding captain wants to, he can call the player back!!! Thats the right way to go in such cases... even i dont agree with the mankad rule, but its there and it must be followed!! thats the end of it.... and i still dont understand why Lankan fans hate indians!!!! i luv the SL cricket team... full of great players.....

  • Sydney_Dingo on February 23, 2012, 22:53 GMT

    Cricket is a gentlemans game played in the sprite of the game and have to abide by the rules and playing conditions. The current rules are ICC playing condition on this Law 42.15 - Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery L aw 42.15 shall be replaced by the following: 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. 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 shal call and signal Dead ball as soon possible. This explains everything I hope

  • tiradia on February 23, 2012, 22:47 GMT

    I grew up playing cricket on the streets of Madras. I don't live in India anymore, and this is one of the few places I visit to stay in touch with the game. It is so disheartening to see the caustic comments on these boards. It is understandable to support your team strongly, but we need to realize that most of us who played cricket, played it because we loved it. We are fans of the game before we are fans of any particular team -- or at least we should strive to be. Hurling insults at each other in jest one thing, but that is not what I see here. There are plenty of other ways to one-up each other. This board has so much potential, let's not waste it by taking our frustrations out on fellow cricket lovers. If I was the bowler, I would've warned Thirumanne once and then run him out. As for my own running, I always kept my bat grounded within the crease no matter how steps out of it I stood. I hope the next match is a good one. Cheers!

  • on February 23, 2012, 22:47 GMT

    There seems to be a lot of controversy on the bowlers part in regards to this rule and unsportsmanship behaviour but really to me it seems like the rule is more aimed towards keeping batsmen honest. Hopefully the batsmen do stay honest due to the lingering threat of the rule, I hope the game doesn't develop to the point there is the equivalent of stealing bases in baseball.

  • Harry_Kool on February 23, 2012, 22:40 GMT

    @Nampally. Do your yourself a HUGE favour and go do an umpire's course. Then perhaps you can contribute a meaningful post regarding umpire's duties. FYI, The unpires course covers this exact scenario, it out;ines procedures & best steps to avoid nastiness of a blowup, which would have been the case had this went ahead. The umpires have the option of asking the fielding team if they want to withdraw, and he exercided it, so help me understand why YOUR opinion overides convention? This umpire is not only one of the higest standard but a particularly succesful former test player whose opinon would rate so far above yours it wouldn't be funny.

  • MH19 on February 23, 2012, 19:53 GMT

    We learned these things in SL when we played School Cricket and knew very well that you have to have your bat on the crease.So there is no excuse when you play for SL that you did not know the rule. Its a ugly situation however lessons should be learnt and I was embarrased as a sri Lankan the way he was continuing to do so.

  • on February 23, 2012, 19:10 GMT

    @Cannuck: If the ball is not in play once the bowler commences his run up, why is it that the umpire has to signal a dead ball if the ball is not delivered? And if the ball is not in play the batsman cannot be run out with a prior warning or without one. Like Bradman had observed when Brown was run out by Vinoo Mankad it perfectly legal and also fair. What actually is unfair is batsmen trying to steal a few paces even before the ball is struck or passes the striker. THAT needs a rule change. Similarly when a batsman strikes the ball straight and the ball hist the stumps at the bowler's end after touching the bowler and the non striker is out of crease it is actually unfair to give the batsman out. That rule also needs to be changed. How fair it is for batsmen to gain a few yards but not even a fraction of an inch/cm for the bowler (no ball) or the fielder (catch/boundary)? Rules are batsmen protective in general. Needs a review of that stance.

  • Nampally on February 23, 2012, 19:09 GMT

    @Cannuck: I agree with your overall conclusion that the Umpire blew an Out in this case by not raising his finger because in accordance with the rules that was the right decision. So all this debate about alternatives is unnecessary. In this case Umpire not only failed in his duty but put the onus on the Indian Captain by talking about the "spirit of the game"!. Umpire failed in his duty by not enforcing the ruling - OUT!. "Dashger"suggestion is void because a ruling already exists on this subject. The Non-striker is taking advantage similar to false start - "flier"- in 100 Meters - beating the gun by fraction of a second. If the striker is moving down the pitch before the ball is bowled, the bowler can see it an alter his length & direction to get the striker out stumped by WK.On the other hand if the non striker leaves his crease, the bowler in short is doing the same job as stumping by WK - via mankading the non- striker.So neither the batsman nor runner is taking advantage- OK?

  • venkat90 on February 23, 2012, 18:52 GMT

    @nilankaraja: All this Ashwin-bashing is nonsense. Ashwin is 100% correct. If we let, you guys will ask Thirimanne to reach the other end by the time the ball is bowled. " Oh, he was just eager to reach the other end!" you say!

  • DevilsCricket on February 23, 2012, 18:29 GMT

    "Michael Clarke said he did not believe it should be legal for a bowler to mankad a batsman" - that's simply stupid.

    I think it's quite fair to do that after 1 warning. Or even better how about amending the rule that till the ball is delivered, a part of the batsman or his bat should be before the line. Fair enough ?????

  • Kavum on February 23, 2012, 18:04 GMT

    Just drop Thirimanne, play Tharanga (who cannot buy a run) and lose the game. Easy. Yeah, right! Good on MJ for talking to the young 22 something. Thirimanne should do well to follow advice and play properly even at the bowler's end. As much as its not in the spirit to Mankad a non-striker, its equally not in the spirit to steal a run by walking halfway down the pitch. In baseball its a legit tactic to "steal a base" and its equally legit to tag the prospective "thief" even before the play (pitch) who is then incontrovertibly "out". That's reasonable and so let our game go on similarly - fair, gentlemanly and uncompromising of the rules applying to both sides. Wish C. Walsh would comment on this page. Team India's thought processes in the middle of all this media-generated "internal strife" have been muddled and needlessly complicated. I'm betting (not illegally) that the saggy greens have their drooping, but thinking, caps on in this match. May the better team win! Go SL go.

  • on February 23, 2012, 17:59 GMT

    @ Nitinn Singhal - go fly a kite with your indian team.was it SL who had whitewashes against AUS & ENG?haha... you should learn cricket before you talk dude.i know most of the indians worship Malinga for his superb bowling.isn't it the indians who cheers him saying "Slinga Malinga" when he balls.so i'm not gonna argue with you on that.SL is full of extraordinary people,and that's why we produce players like Murali,Sana,Malinga n etc.i can only see Little Master Sachin from India as a great player. Actually it should be "Lankans are remembered for their freak losses, while Indians are remembered for their freak wins" And try to resolve your Sehwag-Dhoni issue.cuz all the comments made by both of them looks really immatured.

  • ultrasnow on February 23, 2012, 17:59 GMT

    @KelvinLTR : If Thirimanne tries that against the Aussies, exactly what you say might well happen - Thirimanne run out without facing a ball, lol.

  • SLfan on February 23, 2012, 17:57 GMT

    @ Nitinn Singhal - Well, I can understand your frustration mate, which is purely due to the inability to find a GENUINE FAST BOWLER out of billion people...According to my knowledge, there is no way Lasith Malinga is responsible for that...When talking about SPIRIT, I think general public has a role to play as well. Simplest of that is, fans should be able to tolerate defeats just like you guys did in 1996 !

  • priceless1 on February 23, 2012, 17:47 GMT

    @nilankaraja ha ha ditto dat,at that time he didn't react like a man who had given so many warnings and decided to run Thrimanne out as the last option :))

  • sportofpain on February 23, 2012, 17:43 GMT

    What is all the fuss about - if the batsman is out of his crease, HE is violating the law and the fielding team is being exploited if he is not 'mankaded'. He should be mankaded. Ashwin would be right to celebrate. Let us not get caught up in all this 'it's not cricket' nonsense - It is not cricket to cheat by running before the ball is delivered.

  • sportofpain on February 23, 2012, 17:38 GMT

    @bobmartin: A clarification is needed. The MCC does not run world Cricket - ICC does and MCC is a member of ICC. So it should be ICC that makes changes to the laws and since MCC is a member, they have de facto agreed to the changes.

  • on February 23, 2012, 17:22 GMT

    @era89".lol.......there are plenty of important things to talk about i think.... the person who should folow ponting, the wouful senior batsmans,BAD TEMPERED YOUNGSTERS, and how to play a short ball....etc etc" well said :D

  • Cricketfan122 on February 23, 2012, 17:16 GMT

    There is a simple solution. I think ICC should not allow the bowler to run out the batsman while bowling. There is no easy way to agree on this and we should not get players involved in this decision. The only solution is to give the umpire the power to warn the batsman once and declare the batsman out if he/she is found to be a repeat offender. This would be just like stepping on the danger zone while bowling. Now that we have the replays, this is a easy call for the 3rd umpire to make. As if ICC would listen to me:-)

  • Cannuck on February 23, 2012, 16:53 GMT

    @Dashger: You make a great point, & I like your solution. There's many ways of looking at this. If it's an advantage to be out of the crease then bowler should be able to run the non striker out. But what about the batsman facing the bowler coming out of the crease? Is he also taking an extra advantage, not just to meet the ball early, but also to have a shorter run? Of course he can be stumped, BUT that can be done only after the ball has been bowled, or in play. I think this is where purists have an issue with mankad, because it is a wicket you look to take, BEFORE the ball is in play. It's like an undelivered ball after a run up that umpire signals as a dead ball. So how then can one take a wicket with a dead ball? But now that it is in the rule, it was the UMPIRES who messed up during the SL/INDIA match. According to the new rule, ump should have given him out, simple as that. Any sportsmanship there after, falls on the fielding captain, to call him back or not.

  • nilb on February 23, 2012, 15:08 GMT

    If it's in the rule book or not, it definitely looks so ugly when Ashwin removed the bails and started celebrating. Shame´╗┐ on him!! Hats off to senior players of India who withdrew the appeal.

  • on February 23, 2012, 14:48 GMT

    if srilanka win this match, then india have to win their next 2 matches to get into finals. If australia wins this match, they r in finals.Australia needs to win 1 match out of 3. Sri lanka needs 2 wins out of 3 matches to reach finals. if they loose this one, need to win the other 2.

    india needs to win 2/2 aus needs to win 1/3 SL needs to win 2/3

  • Nampally on February 23, 2012, 14:32 GMT

    I think Sehwag shoud not have withdrawn the appeal. If the rule says mankading is legally OUT, then Umpires should follow the rule rigidly without begging the opposition captain for leniency. Hence the umpire involved should have been fined heavily for not executing the rule. Putting the onus on Sehwag was totally unfair. Even though Clarke says that he does not like the mankading rule, I bet you my bottom dollar he will not flinch in getting the batsman out. The Aussies play hard and will use any tactics to get the batsmen out- fair or unfair. So Clarke's assertion are empty words to score points Thiru was backing up a long way immediately after being given Not out.Only way to teach batsman the rule is to get him out on first infringement. That is the best & everlasting lesson.I am sure when India play SL again he will do it & this time get him out straight away "ruthlessly".

  • era89 on February 23, 2012, 14:29 GMT

    .lol.......there are plenty of important things to talk about i think.... the person who should folow ponting, the wouful senior batsmans,BAD TEMPERED YOUNGSTERS, and how to play a short ball....etc etc

  • Lord.emsworth on February 23, 2012, 14:26 GMT

    Folks, Read Dashgars comments. A fine on something on the lines he proposes is excellent idea instead of giving the batsmen out. It will make eager beavers think twice before leaving their creases. Might induce more excitement for the game too.

  • on February 23, 2012, 13:35 GMT

    The Lankans are making a huge hue & cry after winning this solitary game against India-they are classic examples of that saying that "Winners are remembered for their freak losses, while losers are remembered for their freak wins"!

    And what spirit of cricket are we talking about here? Is that about bowling no-balls to deny people a century, or hyping a bowler who's got noodles in his hair and bowls in a highly suspect manner! BCCI-please show some heart & get this Slinga Malinga BANNED from all kinds of cricket-that would be some real spirit of cricket.

  • Balumekka on February 23, 2012, 12:55 GMT

    Well, I really don't think that bashing Thirimanne will help Indian team to come out from the deep hole that they are in now!!!!

  • Jube on February 23, 2012, 12:50 GMT

    Lozzanova: don't the umpires have enough of a challenge (and make errors) watching for bowlers overstepping and quickly looking up to adjudge an appeal. Do not think its in any way practical to also watch the batsman....Its for the administrators to make the rules and the players to play by them... as simple as that... spirit has a role to play but rules should override all I think....

  • bobmartin on February 23, 2012, 12:08 GMT

    @ cricmatters on (February 23 2012, 11:00 AM GMT) "bobmartin Who cares about MCC and their rule book". Sorry.. but as far as I and no doubt thousands of other umpires agree, the MCC don't have a rule book.. They do however have a book The Laws of Cricket, and whether you like it or not, are in fact the guardians of those Laws. Any Rules are handed down by the ICC in it's playing conditions which have little or no relevence at grass roots. You may scoff at the MCC, but it's their Laws which are still followed by millions of players and umpires around the world. So who cares about them... Answer...We do

  • FadeToBlack on February 23, 2012, 11:45 GMT

    I think the ideal solution for this is to give the umpire the power to warn the batsman once and then give him out if it happens again. Similar to the bowlers been given a warning for running on the pitch and not being allowed to bowl again in the innings if it happens again.

  • cricmatters on February 23, 2012, 11:21 GMT

    Don Bradman in his autobiography defended Mankad, saying:

    "For the life of me, I can't understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the nonstriker 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 nonstriker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage."

  • cricmatters on February 23, 2012, 11:00 GMT

    @bobmartin Who cares about MCC and their rule book. It is just a local club in English county cricket. ICC is the governing body for managing all international matches. One day cricket has undergone lot of changes recently. The two new balls from both ends, changes to power plays, no runner allowed for batsman etc are new rules which seem to be working well. Once you get couple of dismissals for backing up too far in an ODI, you will soon see batsmen staying in the crease till the bowl is actually delivered as they should in the first place. Pleading ignorance about not knowing the changes to the rule is not an excuse at this level.

  • grangana on February 23, 2012, 10:37 GMT

    @ Kunal Kaveesh Joshi : Ha Ha Ha...Angry Champs haaaa..........yes they should be angry after loosing 8 test matches and performing so poorly in the try series..For me its the paper tigers who won the WC.....It seems that guys are angry at each other not at the oppsition teams...

  • Fast_Track_Bully on February 23, 2012, 10:35 GMT

    Funny to see SL fans still bashing Indians even if they got concession from the gentlemen of the game. Hope India will get Spirit of the Cricket award one more time.

  • on February 23, 2012, 10:30 GMT

    I think there is not much to discuss about the line between rules and spirit . Rules are meant to be followed and if u talk about spirit of the game "SRILANKANS DONT DESERVE RESPECT " .. EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF THEIR CHEAP NOBALL TECHNIQUE TO OBSTRUCT A BATSMEN REACH CENTURY.

  • Biggus on February 23, 2012, 10:25 GMT

    People don't usually get Mankaded because it is traditional to warn a player that you're on to his game, and the player usually takes notice of this. If Thirimanne continues to presume that's it's OK to back up a long way prior to delivery after being warned then you really have to run him out, otherwise the logical extension is that the non-striker can start running when the bowler starts his run-up. Personally I find the whole idea of Mankading distasteful but if the non striker (Thirimanne in this case) refuses to smarten up I see no other option but to do so. Having said that, I've never done it, but then no-one's been stupid enough to warrant it. Is Thirimanne? We'll see.

  • kabe_ag7 on February 23, 2012, 10:11 GMT

    First of all. what a twisted sense of sportsman spirit it is. It's all because of the Australian media which couldn't stomach an Australian player getting out in this fashion and made a 'moral' issue out of it. And everybody has just accepted that legacy, while there are so many real moral issues involved who nobody cares about. Maybe there was a time when a batsman could 'accidentally' leave the crease. But modern players are all shrewd and alert enough to not do it 'accidentally'. All of them do it deliberately. And anyway, batsmen get out all the time doing mistakes accidentally. Secondly, if a bowler was not 'allowed' to 'mankad' a batsman, just what would stop an 'unfair' batsman from starting 2 feet outside the crease?

  • stormy16 on February 23, 2012, 9:58 GMT

    I think this is a storm in a tea cup! I am not even sure what the rule is but just apply it. Common sense tells me the batsman should get a warning (if not change the law to state so) and the next time he should be run out and there should be no outcry of foul play ect. I am surprised at both Clark and Jayawardene stating they wouldnt do it. Are they suggesting they are happy if the batsman runs less than the 22 yards? I thought the issue here was Ashwin appealed without a warning which is not on - unless the law allows for it. Just apply the law and get on with it.

  • Lozzanova on February 23, 2012, 9:53 GMT

    Easy change... if the batsman is out of his ground at the moment of delivery then the front-foot no-ball rule should not apply.

  • Dashgar on February 23, 2012, 9:49 GMT

    They should just make it that if a batsman leaves his crease before the ball is bowled that 'one short' will be indicated. If you take out the reward, ie runs, then the batsman won't try to get an advantage this way. To say batsman shouldn't be Mankaded is stupid, batsmen should stay in their crease.

  • Vikum72 on February 23, 2012, 9:46 GMT

    Be careful thirimanne, Indians are experts of this 'mankad' or 'ashwin' or whatever!

  • on February 23, 2012, 9:43 GMT

    How is it defined in the rules book that the ball is in play? Spirit of the game should be to play according to the rules of the game. To forgive ignorance or naivety would be gentlemanly.

  • KelvinLTR on February 23, 2012, 9:27 GMT

    @FAB_ALI: remember 96 WC semis? remember your behavior?

  • unregisteredalien on February 23, 2012, 9:24 GMT

    Mr Clarke: if the ball is live and the batsman is out of his ground, run him out. Don't give us any of this Sehwag "we're just soft" teddy bear nonsense. The spirit of cricket lies elsewhere.

  • bobmartin on February 23, 2012, 9:17 GMT

    Continued from my last post... The ICC seem to forget that the game is played by millions at grass roots and unless this information is circulated by changes to the Laws, how are the players and umpires supposed to know of them or indeed if the changes apply at all levels...

  • bobmartin on February 23, 2012, 9:12 GMT

    As Jan Hilhorst points out, there is a conflict between what the Law states regarding running out the non-striker and what the ICC have instituted either as a Rule and/or Playing Condition. Nothing new there then..The MCC are the custodians of The Laws of Cricket although it appears the ICC rewrite them as they see fit.. They attempted to do so several years ago by ruling that the result of the test forfeited by Pakistan be changed to a draw in contravention of Law 21.3. They have changed the interpretation of Law 24.2 by permitting what that Law as is stands still regards as "throwing"... and now they appear to have done it again with Law 42.15. Running out the non-striker. Jan Hilhorst is highlighting what is probabaly a bigger problem than ICC appreciates with all its tinkering about with the Laws.. If the Law is wrong or evidence proves it needs changing, why not get the MCC to issue the change...

  • jasonpete on February 23, 2012, 9:10 GMT

    @jonathonjosephs I guess the fault is with only srilanka batsman thirumanne.He kept on doing that to other bowlers and was very careful with the Indian bowler ashwin.No one knows he did it on purpose or ignorance.And you cant say only Indians do this,as I remember srilankan spinner put no ball to sehwag which is no where in related to winning the game but just to avoid him getting century.Guess that can be done only by srilanka.will you agree? Oh by the way I don't support India or srilankan team.

  • zenboomerang on February 23, 2012, 9:05 GMT

    Personally I like the rule & would like to see it even tightened up - perhaps some form of penalty when a backing up batter continually leaves his crease before the bowler is in his delivery stride... Give him 2 warnings, then the team gets a penalty - a 20% match fee fine would soon smarten up players... The problem with Thirimanne was that he wasn't even looking at the bowler & was 2-3 steps out of his crease every ball - totally unsportsman like behaviour...

  • zenboomerang on February 23, 2012, 9:05 GMT

    @maniiyer... Completely agree with your thoughts on the use of the name 'Mankad'... It should just be called a bowlers stumping - which is what it is... I can think of a number of great bowlers of yesteryear doing similar things...

  • mathewjohn2176 on February 23, 2012, 8:59 GMT

    @ Mayan mansilu ,I guess you are the only one finding an excuse to bash India here for thirumanne let off.bryon is not telling India lost due to this.He is just mentioning about the rules and laws in the game.Kindly read the article before putting some silly excuse of yours.

  • Sinhabahu on February 23, 2012, 8:52 GMT

    @FAB_ALI, can you remind us who won the last time SL played India?

  • on February 23, 2012, 8:41 GMT

    mayan you better watch out us indian made sri lankan team whimper likes pups and also Australian team as well . This week watch out for the Angry Champs who are gonna rock Aussie Kangaroo's and Sri Lankan Paper tigers boyo

  • Rahul_78 on February 23, 2012, 8:26 GMT

    If mankanding a batsmen who is trying to gain unfair advantage by leaving the crease too soon is unsportsmanlike then they should change the no ball rule and allow bowler to run further ahead of bowling crease and reduce the distance he has to bowl to the batsmen. Clarke, Veeru and Mahela are all top quality gentlemen cricketers but their opinions on mankanding are bit hollow especially it is allowed in the cricketing rule books and directly end up giving unfair advantage to the non striker batsmen.

  • Ameega on February 23, 2012, 8:24 GMT

    It would have been given out, of course, without consulting Sehwag! SL could have still won the game. But, imagine, if it happened, what would be the consequences! As Sehwag admitted, it was reversed just to avoid criticism! If Dhoni was the captain, he would do the same thing, but in a better way, and for a better reason. I personally believe, laws should be changed to make it a short-run if non-striker advances before ball is released. @Mayan, I am not an Ind supporter, but I don't see Indian fans claiming that the run out could have reversed the outcome, except a few fans.

  • on February 23, 2012, 8:23 GMT

    ICC is just making things worse by complicating issues. They shouldn't have changed the rules. Take a look from a batsman's point of view, what's more important to see whether the bowler has started the delivery swing or whether he has finished it? The end of the delivery swing can change and if the bowler is someone like Malinga, how on earth are you going to exactly find the right time to leave the crease??

  • gabrialgihan on February 23, 2012, 8:19 GMT

    @FAB_ALI lmao thats why we rarely win against india are you for real just winning the world cup finals dosent mean you win all the time.its just your luck which worked for the past few months we hammerd you through out the asia cup and you just pulled out the finals...and see what happend to you guys in the CB series.. help you guys to pack their bags they are on their way back.. with yet anaother white wash and a comprehensively defeted ODI series..

  • on February 23, 2012, 8:08 GMT

    Even the school boys would know that i need to go out of the crease once the ball is delivered or i'll be run out. I would have loved it if he was given a run out.

  • CricAnbu2011 on February 23, 2012, 7:55 GMT

    I agree with Fauzer on this. What's this business of warning the batsmen who has knowingly taken undue advantage? This is international cricket and not some club game or a street game which Thirimanne must have played near his house. Since he was repeating the mistake even after Sehwag withdrew the appeal, I am surprised why the Indians did not Mankad him again ! That would have been sufficient enough warning and saved Mahela the trouble of speaking to him!

  • sachin_vvsfan on February 23, 2012, 7:47 GMT

    @Mayan Mansilu where in this article is it mentioned that India lost because of this run out? Getting hammered in next matches? Too early to talk.

  • spiritwithin on February 23, 2012, 7:46 GMT

    @Mayan Mansilu..nobody here is talking about the end result of the game,its about taking unfair advantage of running before the ball was delivered and shortening the pitch distance..i think its easy to comprehend the meaning of this article

  • spiritwithin on February 23, 2012, 7:42 GMT

    @johnathonjosephs..so u think leaving the crease early is very fair??all the other teams also gives warning if the batsman leaves the crease early,if its fair to leave crease than y batsman r warned..recent ICC rules says that bowlers r allowed to mankad a batsman to stop the unfair practice,thats the rule,so within a rule its not unfair to get wickets by this way..infact its unfair of Lahiru to take advantage of 'sportman spirit' and d the same mistake again and again knowing that he wont be out,so unfair...so other team does'nt care??y not then tell ur batsman to stand at halfway of the pitch and run from their instead of running from the crease,or better tell ur non striker to stand at the striker end itself so that he does'nt even have to run..if ur batsman is not following the rule that means they r not playing fair cricket,very simple

  • Fauzer on February 23, 2012, 7:28 GMT

    I am as die hard a fan of Sri Lanka as you can get, and as happy as I was for Thirimanne to play as confidently as he did on the day, I didn't have any sympathy for him when Ashwin appealed for the run out. (conflicting emotions, I know, because I was happy the appeal was withdrawan).

    Cricket is about the batting team making runs and keeping wickets, and the fielding team stopping the runs and taking wickets. I for the life of me can't understand why a bowler shouldn't run out the non striker if he is backing up too far. Why should the fielding team give a free adavatage of quicker / shorter run to a batsman and forego the chance of a wicket???

    Why does the bowler even need to warn the non striker? If you are prepared to take an advanatge, also be prepared to get run out. Or be smart and wait till the bowler has passed the point of running you out before you start backing up.

  • on February 23, 2012, 7:26 GMT

    Dear Sir,

    In this artikelabout backing up a reference to a law change is mentioned:

    "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."

    is apparently contradictory to http://www.lords.org/data/files/laws-of-cricket-2000-code-4th-edition-final-10422.pdf

    Law 42.15 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 nonstriker. 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.

    Was there another change in 2011??? Regards, Mr. J. Hilhorst ECB-ACO Umpire

  • WinT20 on February 23, 2012, 7:24 GMT

    Clarke speaks all non sense...i totally agree with tht wen at the last ball, the oppositon team requires a run and the batsmen unduely run the half of the pitch without the ball being bowled, will he still say not run out tht batsmen..utter bull shit by Clarke

  • FAB_ALI on February 23, 2012, 7:19 GMT

    This was not the first time we saw a sri lankan player in unsporting act against India. Thats why they rarely win against India.

  • seanofoz on February 23, 2012, 7:14 GMT

    There is an infinitely small line between where backing up is acceptable & not acceptable. It is simplest to have that line as the crease while the bowler hasn't bowled the ball. This infinitely small line is enforced through honour and when that fails mankadding. The dishonour accrues to the batsman not the bowler.

  • on February 23, 2012, 7:06 GMT

    @Mayan Mansilu - Nowhere Brydon said that India lost 'cause of that. The article only talks about the issue of backing up too far and the last 2 paras and not exactly in relation to backing up. Clear up your mind and read carefully.

  • on February 23, 2012, 7:03 GMT

    Thats about the only way i haven't got out yet in the game of cricket... I must try it this saturday :)

  • cricmatters on February 23, 2012, 7:00 GMT

    Leaving your crease before the bowler has finished his delivery is cheating in plain and simple language. Rules were changed to stop exactly this kind of cheating in the field. The umpires should have given him out. There was no need to consult the fielding captain or anybody.

  • Lord.emsworth on February 23, 2012, 6:58 GMT

    Whats there to warn and be told? Thirimanne should know. This is not junior cricket. And Thirimanne is a not exactly a young lad. He is nigh on 23. Lads are usually small boys or teenagers...( Someone please buy MJ a dictionary) Law 42.15 is there for a reason. If it is considered contrary to the spirit of the game then it should be removed. End of story.

  • on February 23, 2012, 6:41 GMT

    so basically all these article's trying to say india lost b coz of they didnt get that run out? k nice excuse. but how india gonna find more excuses when they get hammered in next 2 matches , and what excuse gonna save them once they get kicked out of tournament?

  • KelvinLTR on February 23, 2012, 6:24 GMT

    hopefully thirimanne will not have to bat!

  • anver777 on February 23, 2012, 6:22 GMT

    I totally agree with Clarke.... this rule is ridiculous !!!!!

  • jmcilhinney on February 23, 2012, 6:22 GMT

    This whole thing stinks. How big of Jayawardene to admit that Thirimanne had "a bit of fault". The fact is that ALL the fault lies with Thirimanne. Everyone knows the rules. He didn't obey them. He was warned and he didn't stop. He was actually dismissed and reprieved and he didn't stop. Either he is quite stupid or else he's not playing in the law or the spirit of the game. As for Clarke, saying that batsmen shouldn't be able to be out that way is ridiculous. What if the batting side needs one run off the last ball? Should the non-striker be able to start halfway down the pitch? How about the batsman just stays in his crease until the ball is bowled and then it won't be an issue? At least Ian Bell had the decency to admit his own culpability in his contentious run out against India in England, but that was a very different situation. Here, the batsman is trying to unfairly gain an advantage so he deserves to be run out.

  • johnathonjosephs on February 23, 2012, 6:21 GMT

    Only India does this kind of stuff. All the other countries agree it is not within fair play and even after the rule, many batsman did the same thing and the other team did not care. It's simply a desperate way to get someone out when the opposition is in momentum and its hard to get wickets.

  • satish619chandar on February 23, 2012, 6:19 GMT

    Good to have the senior players warn the youngster. .If at all he gets out like that next time, he ll have to blame himself alone and there ll be no one to show any sort of sympathy on him.. He ll be under microscope of the broadcasters for sure every time he is in the nonstriker end.. Being a good player, i guess he ll learn this too sooner..

  • maniiyer on February 23, 2012, 6:06 GMT

    Surprising how when you attempt to run a batsmen out for backing up too far you are supposed to be doing "a mankad" but when you bowl short at the batsman from around the wicket you are not supposed to be doing" a larwood" or when you employ tactics contrary to the spirit of the game you are not supposed to be doing "a jardine" .Mankad was a Great Cricketer whose legacy & contribution to our great game goes beyond a single incident .

  • SriLankanLions on February 23, 2012, 6:00 GMT

    Come on Sri Lanka! You can do it once again. :roar:

  • twofer on February 23, 2012, 5:53 GMT

    It is not the method of dismissal that is unsportsmanlike. It is the behaviour of the batsman that should be condemned. They are basically leaving one crease early so they can easier make their ground at the other end. There is nothing wrong with backing up/ taking a lead once the ball has left the bowler's hand, going before that is either cheating or chancing the consequences. On the other hand it is not desirable to continue stopping the game to warn batsmen about leaving too early. No one cares about a few centimetres, but when the distance starts to measure in metres,(1/2, 3/4, 1.5metres) this is more than the distance of most run outs and batsmen should be culpable.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • twofer on February 23, 2012, 5:53 GMT

    It is not the method of dismissal that is unsportsmanlike. It is the behaviour of the batsman that should be condemned. They are basically leaving one crease early so they can easier make their ground at the other end. There is nothing wrong with backing up/ taking a lead once the ball has left the bowler's hand, going before that is either cheating or chancing the consequences. On the other hand it is not desirable to continue stopping the game to warn batsmen about leaving too early. No one cares about a few centimetres, but when the distance starts to measure in metres,(1/2, 3/4, 1.5metres) this is more than the distance of most run outs and batsmen should be culpable.

  • SriLankanLions on February 23, 2012, 6:00 GMT

    Come on Sri Lanka! You can do it once again. :roar:

  • maniiyer on February 23, 2012, 6:06 GMT

    Surprising how when you attempt to run a batsmen out for backing up too far you are supposed to be doing "a mankad" but when you bowl short at the batsman from around the wicket you are not supposed to be doing" a larwood" or when you employ tactics contrary to the spirit of the game you are not supposed to be doing "a jardine" .Mankad was a Great Cricketer whose legacy & contribution to our great game goes beyond a single incident .

  • satish619chandar on February 23, 2012, 6:19 GMT

    Good to have the senior players warn the youngster. .If at all he gets out like that next time, he ll have to blame himself alone and there ll be no one to show any sort of sympathy on him.. He ll be under microscope of the broadcasters for sure every time he is in the nonstriker end.. Being a good player, i guess he ll learn this too sooner..

  • johnathonjosephs on February 23, 2012, 6:21 GMT

    Only India does this kind of stuff. All the other countries agree it is not within fair play and even after the rule, many batsman did the same thing and the other team did not care. It's simply a desperate way to get someone out when the opposition is in momentum and its hard to get wickets.

  • jmcilhinney on February 23, 2012, 6:22 GMT

    This whole thing stinks. How big of Jayawardene to admit that Thirimanne had "a bit of fault". The fact is that ALL the fault lies with Thirimanne. Everyone knows the rules. He didn't obey them. He was warned and he didn't stop. He was actually dismissed and reprieved and he didn't stop. Either he is quite stupid or else he's not playing in the law or the spirit of the game. As for Clarke, saying that batsmen shouldn't be able to be out that way is ridiculous. What if the batting side needs one run off the last ball? Should the non-striker be able to start halfway down the pitch? How about the batsman just stays in his crease until the ball is bowled and then it won't be an issue? At least Ian Bell had the decency to admit his own culpability in his contentious run out against India in England, but that was a very different situation. Here, the batsman is trying to unfairly gain an advantage so he deserves to be run out.

  • anver777 on February 23, 2012, 6:22 GMT

    I totally agree with Clarke.... this rule is ridiculous !!!!!

  • KelvinLTR on February 23, 2012, 6:24 GMT

    hopefully thirimanne will not have to bat!

  • on February 23, 2012, 6:41 GMT

    so basically all these article's trying to say india lost b coz of they didnt get that run out? k nice excuse. but how india gonna find more excuses when they get hammered in next 2 matches , and what excuse gonna save them once they get kicked out of tournament?

  • Lord.emsworth on February 23, 2012, 6:58 GMT

    Whats there to warn and be told? Thirimanne should know. This is not junior cricket. And Thirimanne is a not exactly a young lad. He is nigh on 23. Lads are usually small boys or teenagers...( Someone please buy MJ a dictionary) Law 42.15 is there for a reason. If it is considered contrary to the spirit of the game then it should be removed. End of story.