Somerset v Surrey, Taunton, 3rd day

Surrey express regret after Kartik 'Mankading'

David Lloyd at Taunton

August 30, 2012

Comments: 131 | Text size: A | A

Gareth Batty took 2 for 52, Surrey v Middlesex, County Championship, The Oval, 2nd day, August, 26, 2012
Gareth Batty said he may have reconsidered his appeal had he been given time to reflect © Getty Images
Enlarge

A contrite Gareth Batty effectively admitted that he made a mistake "in the heat of battle" in not withdrawing the appeal that resulted in Somerset's Alex Barrow being run out for backing-up too far - a practice known outside England at least as 'Mankading.'

The Surrey captain accepted full responsibility for the decision and said: "The last thing I wanted was to bring the spirit of cricket into disrepute."

Although it has always been strictly acceptable within the laws, 'Mankading' is regarded by many within the English game as being a breach of etiquette and is an unpalatable act for many players, as well as fans.

County cricket has remained wedded to such mores since the late nineteeth century but attitudes are now blurred, especially outside England, to the point where for the tradition to survive it might ultimately have to be written into England's domestic playing regulations.

Law 42.15, as adapted by ECB playing regulations for championship cricket, simply states: "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"

Somerset and their supporters were incensed when Murali Kartik, their former spinner, removed a bail and appealed for a run out after non-striker Barrow had wandered out of his crease.

The young batsman had already been warned by Kartik, earlier in the over, for leaving his ground too soon - a caution the bowler did not need to deliver under the laws, but one which if delivered traditionally protects the bowler from allegations of sharp practice.*

As captain, Batty was asked by umpire Peter Hartley whether he wanted the appeal to stand. "In the heat of the battle I made the decision that, according to the letter of the law, it was the correct decision for him to be out," said the former England spinner.

Batty said that "hindsight was a wonderful thing" and suggested that if - like India during last summer's Test at Trent Bridge when Ian Bell was reinstated following a controversial run-out incident - he had enjoyed the luxury of a 20-minute tea interval to reconsider events, a different outcome would probably have resulted.

"People obviously think the spirit of the game has been brought into disrepute - that was not my intention and I thoroughly apologise for that," Batty said.

He added that he would be speaking to Marcus Trescothick, Somerset's captain. "I want to make sure it is right with Marcus and his team," he said.

Trescothick is not the sort of person to hold a grudge but he was clearly cross with what he had witnessed. "It's not what you come to expect in county cricket - I've never seen it before," the former England opener said. "That was quite astonishing and disappointing. The game doesn't need to come to that. It's not the game we like to play. It annoys the players and upsets the players. But we'll move on, come back tomorrow and carry on playing the game."

Chris Adams, Surrey's team director, was also in placatory mood. "I think in terms of upholding the laws of cricket it was the right decision but I think the situation certainly challenges the spirit of cricket," said Adams. "That is regrettable.

"I will support the captain in this because I have been out there in many, many situations where it is very intense. These are very intense days for a lot of teams, but especially us. It has been a very, very difficult summer [Surrey's young player Tom Maynard died in an accident on London underground in mid-summer] and we find ourselves in a position where every point, every wicket and every run appears to be of the highest premium."

Adams also recalled the dismissal of Bell against India last year, run out after he thought tea had been called. "In that incidence they India had 20 minutes of a tea-break to reflect, discuss and consider and whether it was right to change that decision," he said.

"I think we all breathed a sigh of relief when that decision was overturned. I would like to think that had we been afforded the same 20 minutes that perhaps we would have come to the same outcome. Perhaps we wouldn't.

"I would suggest maybe in the goodness of time we could all say that the one thing that hasn't been totally upheld is the spirit of cricket, and that is regrettable."

The issue has come to the fore because of a recent change in the ICC playing regulations - adopted by the ECB for domestic cricket - which now allow the bowler to run a batsman out until the point where he has completed his delivery stride - not entered his delivery stride as stated in the MCC laws. That has made the practice easier for the bowler and confused players and spectators alike.

As for Kartik, he apparently could not understand what all the fuss was about, tweeting: "Everyone get a life please... if a batsman is out on a stroll, in spite of being warned, does that count as being in the spirit of the game?"

*2:50 GMT August 31: The report had erroneously stated that the law relating to Mankading was rewritten last year.

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by antikato on (September 1, 2012, 13:28 GMT)

In these instances it is the batsmen trying to gain advantage who is at fault.

Posted by ashutoshs87 on (September 1, 2012, 7:39 GMT)

I simply don't understand why is Mankading considered against the spirit of the game? For me, Kartik did the right thing by warning the batsman first. Why is everyone after Batty and Kartik and no one questioning what the batsman was up to despite being warned previously. Was he himself unaware of the rules and even if that was the case, its hardly an excuse because he had been warned. Its very easy to raise a finger against the bowler, but why are no questions being asked to the batsman. Why are no questions being asked to the rule-makers? And why are the rules of the game being considered against the spirit of the game? If the batsman take an extra step before the ball is bowled and hence, gets an advantage in a tight single, will you still consider the batsman to be following the spirit of the game? It hardly matters if you hide behind the curtains of old-fashion-ism to justify something which is fundamentally incorrect. Go play some other sport if that's your argument!

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 20:55 GMT)

@The_Cornish_Pope. Never before have cricket words been truly spoken. Excellent post. Well done!!

Posted by cnumadhu on (August 31, 2012, 20:06 GMT)

Bring in this rule : Penalise a run and a ball for the batting team every time a non-striker strolls out before a ball is bowled just like the bowling team is penalised for a no ball. That's it. I never understood how stealing couple of yards by the non striker is in the "spirit of the game".

Posted by switchmitch on (August 31, 2012, 18:51 GMT)

@voice_of_reason - Thanks. My point is Karthik and Batty played by the rules. So, why hold them morally accountable? It is the job of the administrators to change/modify archaic preambles to suit the current times. The players are merely trying to win matches - that is what they are paid for and in this case, it is not even against the written law. Karthik and Batty did nothing wrong and subjecting the them to an unwritten (vague/ambiguous) moral yardstick is not correct.

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 17:53 GMT)

If the bowler had in fact warned the non-striker already, the batsman has no grounds for complaining about unsporting conduct. Bradman himself made that point after Mankad ran out Bill Brown after having warned him earlier.

Posted by sharidas on (August 31, 2012, 17:52 GMT)

Lets look at this scenario...Last ball of the match...two runs required to win...the batsman plays the ball and start off for runs...(the non striker is already out of his crease by a yard before the ball is bowled)...First run completed...second run in progress...a very close run out appeal on completion of the second run....The TV umpire rules the batsman NOT OUT....fair or not ?

Posted by diptanshu on (August 31, 2012, 16:57 GMT)

Although the bowler is not obliged to warn the non-striker, Kartik did warn him before removing the bails. How can following the rule book not be in "spirit of the game"? This pretentious "holier than thou" attitude in cricket must stop. If it is in the rule book, it IS in the spirit of the game. Else the rule book author don't understand the "spirit of the game". If anything that is not in the spirit of the game, it is non-striker going for a run before the bowler reaches his/her delivery stride.

Posted by The_Cornish_Pope on (August 31, 2012, 16:46 GMT)

Cricketers consider a Mankad unacceptable, and that is the context within which cricket is played. It is not cultural, but a fact from Tests to village. On Tuesday KP was shown respect when applauded through his innings. Thursday showed the seedier side. Younger fielders were chippy; Kartik was fired up even bowling well and having appeals upheld. To use the Mankad as revenge was childish. However, the baiting of the crowd by Batty and the behaviour of close fielders made a bad situation worse. Captains have a responsibility. Sports such as cricket can be competitive whilst keeping sportsmanship, and are the better for it. Cricket rightly looks up to Dhoni who has shown his sportsmanship on many occasions. Strauss likewise. The same will never be said of Batty, and the fact that Kartik still sees nothing wrong may say a lot about him. Call me old-fashioned but those who want to see a game where anything goes and very little is frowned on should watch football. Just off to get a life...

Posted by The-Cricketer on (August 31, 2012, 16:37 GMT)

Now I am confused...... Question to those which thinks that this was "Against the spirit of the game" - Can you please confirm if walking out of the crease (intentionally/unintentionally) before the ball is bowled is within the Spirit of the game.

Posted by sharidas on (August 31, 2012, 16:29 GMT)

Let the Umpires start penalising stolen runs as "one short" and all this hypocrisy will end.

Posted by Matttheumpire on (August 31, 2012, 16:29 GMT)

Everyone is making comments about whether it is in "the spirit of the game" but no one has picked up on the comment I made about the Law and how it was changed. Kartik in my opinion was in his "delivery stride" therefore he can't run the batsman out. If people disagree with me regarding his "delivery stride" I would love to hear your views. But until that is established the rest is irrelivant.

Posted by voice_of_reason on (August 31, 2012, 16:23 GMT)

@mozoak The laws of cricket start with The Preamble - The Spirit of Cricket. I could not possibly attempt to define the spirit of cricket within the space allowed here but the essence is as follows: 1. The game should be played in a fair manner 2. The umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play and the captains are responsible for ensuring their teams play within the spirit of cricket 3. You show respect for your opponents, your own team and captain, the officials and the game. 4. Do not dispute an umpire's decision 5. Do not be abusive by action or words to players, officials or spectators. Find a copy of the Laws of Cricket and that will give the full wording of the preamble. You will also find the actual Law relating to running out someone before the bowler delivers the ball. However the Laws of Cricket differ to the playing regulations applying to the County Championship/first class in terms of when you can take off the bails.

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 15:36 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!

Posted by sharidas on (August 31, 2012, 15:07 GMT)

Perhaps in our playing days, we may not have done it. But, looking clearly at the intention of the batsman ie; taking an undue advantage in stealing a run is as unacceptable a practice as bowling a no ball, which of course, is penalised. Why not write the rule clearly in the laws and be done away with it?

Posted by ansram on (August 31, 2012, 15:03 GMT)

Spirit of Cricket. To the hell with that nonsense. Batsmen who try to steal a few yards are not going against the spirit of the game? Please abolish this law or allow it to be used by a bowler whenever necessary - please don't make cricket a joke.

Posted by TRAM on (August 31, 2012, 14:26 GMT)

The runner has the right to steal a run and the bowler has the right to run him out. IT IS LOT OF FUN WHEN BOTH COMPETE LIKE THIS and I as spectator enjoy this. This is no different from the striker coming out of his crease and try to hit the ball and gets stumped out by the keeper. BOTH ARE FUN and that is cricket. Those who call either action as against the "spirit", can you please move to some other planet?? If you take any action for the SPIRIT of the game, let it be on the Umpire who ignored the clear rules and talked to the captain and made this a big mess.

Posted by Bruised_Mike on (August 31, 2012, 14:24 GMT)

Batsmen backing up too early has been a blight on the game for far too long, especially in limited overs matches where the occasional extra single can make all the difference. I applaud Kartik for his actions and hope that it will be a lesson learnt by other batsmen bot to leave their crease too early in order to gain an ufair advantage.

Posted by switchmitch on (August 31, 2012, 14:22 GMT)

What is this spirit of the game that every one is talking about? Can someone help me understand it?

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 14:21 GMT)

@somsupporter55s comments are balanced and sensible and altho' I wasn't at the game I've seen and studied the TV replays and there was NO clear evidence that a) Barrow was given a visual or verbal warning and b) there was NO indication that he was seeking to gain an obvious advantage. In those situations where there was doubt about the safety or legitimacy of the dismissal the umpire was absolutely correct under the 'Spirit of the Game' to ask Batty if it was a serious appeal.As its a very unconventional and extremely rare dismissal - rightly or wrongly - it IS 'unsporting' to run batsmen out in these circumstances and what makes cricket so unique is the Spirit of the Game not only underpins it but occasions like this it make appeals and decision making incidental. If players at whatever level/standard want to play/compete like that the laws allow them to do it but Barrow's dismissal was just 'not cricket' as we know it.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 31, 2012, 14:13 GMT)

Havign seent he dismissal, I have to agree with 200ondebut, Barrow was starting to walk as soon as Karthik started his delivery and was out of his grounf by what appears to be 12-18 inches, when the bails are removed/

Posted by sam_m on (August 31, 2012, 14:07 GMT)

Looks like most of the people involved have commented. What does Alex Barrow have to say about this? Surrey are getting a lot of undeserved criticism. What is up with the umpires trying to guilt trip the captain into withdrawing the appeal? Oh I know, they can choose to throw the rule book out whenever they feel fit.

Posted by TRAM on (August 31, 2012, 13:59 GMT)

Let us apply the same "spirit of the game" to every rule. The keeper should warn the batsman for his first stumping. "Hey batsman, dont go out of the crease, I will really really stump you next time, ok?". Oh I forgot. Even in the second time after stumping, he can only appeal, right?. The umpire should first try to get the "spirit" right and should ask the fielding captain to reconsider. Lets bring this good practice well written. The umpires for all kinds of outs, caught, clean-bowled, lbw, etc should first ask the fielding captain to really reconsider the appeal. Long live the "cricketing spirit".

Posted by tusharkardile on (August 31, 2012, 13:56 GMT)

Did Kartik really Mankad him even in the delivery stride. He abandoned his attempt to bowl, and Mankaded the poor fellow after what could have been his follow through!!! Shouldn't it have been called dead ball as soon as Kartik decided not to bowl, and went in his follow through?

Posted by bestbuddy on (August 31, 2012, 13:53 GMT)

@Neil Dyer, if the bowler has not completed his delivery stride then it is still out

Posted by bestbuddy on (August 31, 2012, 13:51 GMT)

@200ondebut, the batsman has to remain in his ground until the bowler has finished his release. if he does not he is out. If the bowler has completed his release then its not out and its the umpires fault for giving it. Either way though it is not Kartik's responsibility to decide, nor is it Batty's to withdraw the appeal. If the Batsman wants to cheat (and by backing up too far that is exactly what he's doing) then he should be punished; that is why the rules was reintroduced

Posted by tassietiger85 on (August 31, 2012, 13:35 GMT)

I think we've all imagined a situation where Barrow was a couple of yards out of his crease, myself included, and therefore everyone is agreeing with Batty. But, if what 200ondebut is true (I haven't seen the footage), than I agree that it is very bad sportsmanship. It is well established that the non-striker walk through the crease as the ball is bowled, no one stands there flat-footed. If Kartik manipulated this to run him out, then that is very poor form, despite the warning. Would be great if the footage was available, maybe most of us have jumped to the wrong conclusion...

Posted by bluebillion on (August 31, 2012, 13:26 GMT)

200ondebut - i dont think you watched the incident properly enough. And I dont think you know the rule well enough either. If he was at the crease at the point the bowler would release the ball, he cannot be given out. In fact, the batsman is free to leave his crease once the bowler has completed his delivery stride. I saw the match on TV too and saw numerous replays of the incident. I am sorry but Barrow was strolling without paying attention to the bowler and after he had been warned by the umpire. Kartik was right in running him out and Surrey have no need to apologise for the batsman's stupidity.

Posted by 200ondebut on (August 31, 2012, 13:24 GMT)

.....and I would add - Kartik had gone through his normal delivery swing - he just didn't let go. As such the umpires were wrong to give the batsman out.

Posted by jrichards01 on (August 31, 2012, 12:22 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.

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 12:20 GMT)

If he was already warned earlier in the over - then that's fine. Should have stayed in his crease

Posted by 200ondebut on (August 31, 2012, 11:29 GMT)

Saw the TV replay on the news last night - the batsman was not backing up too far, indeed he was in his crease at the point Kartik would have released the ball. Kartik held on to it and of course the batsmans momentum took him out of his crease. The batsman was not trying to seek an advantage - it is not as if he was runnig down the pitch - he was just walking as the bowler bowled. Kartik in essence tricked him and in my mind, regardless of the technical nature of the dismissal, this was a despicable thing to do.

Posted by RFC73 on (August 31, 2012, 11:18 GMT)

Somerset fans shouldn't blame Kartik - he wouldn't understand the different attitudes in England. Blame Surrey's (English) captain and coach and also the ECB. If they feel that strongly about it outlaw the practice in CC playing conditions. PS - did Indian fans dissaprove when Verinder let Thirimanne off in the same circumstances in Australia this year?

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 11:12 GMT)

OK.. Karthik gave a warning. Once the non-striker has been given a warning, it is up to him to ensure that he does not give the bowler a second chance to run him out, much less wander out of his ground again in the same over.

No sympathy here. You're out son. Bye bye. And don't try sneaking off down the pitch again to get a jump on that quick single!

Posted by StoneRose on (August 31, 2012, 10:55 GMT)

If he has been warned then he should be out. Otherwise what is to stop the batsman from backing up from the striker's popping crease? The line has to be drawn somewhere - and the return crease (plus a warning) should be sufficient.

Posted by _myk on (August 31, 2012, 10:20 GMT)

The non-striker situation is becoming increasingly ridiculous, especially in 20-20 games where some players seem to be half way down the wicket before the bowler has completed his action (further penalising fast bowlers, who have less chance of stopping).

I don't see anything wrong with Mankading a player after a warning, the offending batsman should be the one apologising as he's the one trying to cheat.

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 10:08 GMT)

if 'mankading' is allowed by law and bowler does not have to give a warning (which initially i thought he did) and yet did , then i dont see what the big issue or controversy is ? He did rightly so according to the laws and 'Spirit' of the game.

Posted by atuljain1969 on (August 31, 2012, 10:04 GMT)

Sure English are different, that is why they could rule the world.

Posted by Firepool on (August 31, 2012, 10:02 GMT)

The booing started only after the prolonged conversation between umpire, bowler and captain, when it was clear to all that the umpire was asking for appeal to be withdrawn. Only when Barrow (who had stood aside from the conversation) was dismissed did the crowd voice their disapproval.

Can it be assumed that those who have rushed to support the initial action also agree with Batty's on-field disregard for the umpire's suggestion or do they agree with his subsequent apology?

Posted by georgebhai on (August 31, 2012, 10:00 GMT)

Why on earth should we have a rule if you need to apologise for it. Why should the batsman take undue advantage of backing up before the ball is delivered?

Posted by Rastus on (August 31, 2012, 9:54 GMT)

I totally agree with what Kartik did, the batsman had been warned, it is his own fault.

I don't know what the umpire is doing asking if they want the appeal to stand - he exacerbated the situation by implying that Kartik had done something sneaky.

Posted by bobmartin on (August 31, 2012, 9:53 GMT)

Speaking as an ex-umpire and a Somerset fan, there is no excuse for the batsman continuing to back up too far after already having been given one warning. Moreover, how far does the spirit of the game go when it contravenes the Laws and the playing conditions.

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 9:46 GMT)

Dantheman96 - the reason Kartik dint join Somerset is that until late in the season they did confirm whether they want him - which is why he signed with Surrey who offered him - get your facts right...

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 9:46 GMT)

I would suggest all those in favour of the bowler here watch the video. Since Murali Kartik had entered his delivery stride, Alex Barrow was perfectly entitled to leave his ground. It is actually the umpire who is at fault, as the correct decision is "not out and a dead ball" Notwithstanding this, the practice of Mankading is, to me, an underused one; BUT the warning should be absolutely clear and unequivocal, perhaps by holding the ball to the bails with the batsman out of his ground. Then everyone knows where they (pardon the pun) stand.

Posted by northumbriannomad on (August 31, 2012, 9:36 GMT)

It's viewed differently in England, and in spite of all the outraged comments here, it's OK to have different traditions, not everyone has to do things like they are done in India, traditions everywhere should be respected. If someone served roast beef and horseradish sandwiches at a match in India people would rightly be outraged and I wouldn't jump on to the internet to shriek at the outraged people for being stupid.

Kartik's argument that people should "get a life" clearly shows an absolute lack of insight into anything, but his captain should have been more alert to the situation. However, Batty has always been a chippy sort, and it seems that wherever Chris Adams goes, he cultivates a rather ruthless and dislikable cricket culture, so one can't blame Kartik. Batty's apology, incidentally, sounds about as sincere as one would expect.

CUe some more shrieking, I suppose. Well, whoever shouts loudest and gets more angry wins the argument, I dare say

Posted by Green_and_Gold on (August 31, 2012, 9:10 GMT)

Rubbish - Just Rubbish. Its the batsmans fault for leaving the crease, he was warned and did it again. I totally support the practice (and im a batsman) - its a quirky rule that should be a real rarity most often seen when there is a real pressure for runs.

Posted by brittop on (August 31, 2012, 8:47 GMT)

Of course it is completely ridiculous to regard Mankading as against the spirit of the game. The batsman breaks the rules, so the bowler has to have a sanction. What should happen now is Marcus Trescothick and Somerset should apologise for castigating Surrey. Umpires should stop trying to make captains withdrew their appeals for Mankading, and journalists should stop writing as though there is a controversy.

Posted by John-Price on (August 31, 2012, 8:42 GMT)

What is not reported is how this was done. Did Barrow leave his crease too early or did Kartik stop his action while Barrow was in the crease and the batsman then just moved forward out of habit or perhaps had not seen Kartik stop? I think the distinction is important.

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 8:34 GMT)

100% of the comments are in Karthik's and batty favor, never seen such a unity, Karthik did the right thing, and completely agree with his after match comments.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 31, 2012, 8:34 GMT)

@timohyj, actually batsmen no walking when they know they've nicked it is a pet bugbear of mine, Smith's dismissal at Lords in the first innings was understandable as he'd hit the ground with the bat at the same time so he probably wouldnt have felt it. A tell tale sign the bastman knows hes nicked it is when he looks round to see if its caught.

Posted by dantheman96 on (August 31, 2012, 8:20 GMT)

What made this a lot worse is the fact that Kartik left Somerset last year saying he and his wife were tired of moving between England and India, and then he turns up for Surrey?There was already bad feeling among Somerset fans for this. Throw in the fact that Kartik had celebrated his 3 lbws extravagantly, and that Batty isn't exactly popular anyway, and that Somerset were looking to rebuild only to lose a wicket like that, and you have the answer to why the Somerset fans were so annoyed.The infuriation was mainly down to the shock of losing a wicket like that in that situation.As a Somerset fan, I was there yesterday, and it didn't feel right.After watching it again, it is obvious that Barrow was not trying to gain ground unfairly, he was just backing up like normal.I think that there could be a lot more dismissals like this, but players agree that it isn't in the spirit of cricket.For some reason, Kartik felt the need to do this to an old teammate. It is disgraceful, warning or not

Posted by sonir on (August 31, 2012, 8:08 GMT)

Totally agree with what Karthik did. He did warn the batsman, which he didnt have to do and the batsman still stole ground. On the contrary, its the batsman that is bringing the game into disrepute. Why then is ECB not more lenient on bowlers. I think the County circuit should be stricter on the rules as when the players are playing in the International Arena or outside England, they will be found wanting. Classical example is Steve Finn, where in the county circuit, he would of gotten away with knocking of the bails, but in the recent test series, paid dearly for it.

Posted by somsupporter55 on (August 31, 2012, 8:01 GMT)

I was at Taunton and saw the incident.

There is no way I want to watch cricket played in such a way.

Kartik was bowling well - getting people out with his bowling. Out of the blue Kartik runs out Barrow. I saw no warning given by Kartik - no one I spoke to at Taunton did. I saw Barrow perhaps a few inches out of his crease, hardly stealing a run simply backing up in the normal way everyone in county cricket does, and then I saw Kartik do something I've never seen in county cricket - run him out.

Worse was Batty's (unreported) reaction which was to bait the crowd by sarcastically slow hand clapping back - he even started arguing with a section of it. This further angered the crowd - it's a naive way for a cricket captain to behave.

It really was simply not cricket.

If the warning was more obvious then the crowd might have accepted the run out but, as i said, the was no sign a warning was given- no sign at all.

Posted by Naren on (August 31, 2012, 8:00 GMT)

Does all English players walk when they nick? If they do that then they can talk about upholding the Spirit of the Game. We all know about W G Grace.. why do they create a whole scene now??

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (August 31, 2012, 7:33 GMT)

I personally see nothing wrong with what happened, the batsman shouldnt leave his crease until the bowler is in his delivery stride. I do sometimes think the CC game is too lenient on this type of thing and it leads to problems at the high level of the game, thinking of Matt Prior at the WC and his run out in the Bangladesh game.

Posted by timohyj on (August 31, 2012, 7:29 GMT)

I never really got why it is against the spirit of the game to dismiss a batsman after giving him warnings but it is perfectly fine for the batsman to get an unfair advantage by leaving the crease before the bowlers released the ball. That seems very against the spirit of the game. The rules are so skewed in favour of the batsmen. You won't find anyone saying that it is against the spirit of cricket when a batsman doesn't walk when he knicks. They say the bastman has the right to stay there if the umpire makes a bad call. But the bowler doesn't have the right to do anything when a batsman is getting an unfair advantage?????

Posted by Newlandsfaithful on (August 31, 2012, 7:09 GMT)

If you aren't going to punish the batsmen for going too far, then why punish the bowlers? Lets do away with the no-ball rule for overstepping the mark as well then - it's not in "the spirit of the game". It get's silly doesn't it? The ICC must step up and unambiguously support these "mankading" incidents otherwise the rules will start becoming sentimental rubbish.

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 6:30 GMT)

I don't think I've ever seen so much unity on an internet forum on something so 'controversial' - given a warning for backing up too far you shouldn't be surprised to be given run out if you keep on doing it. I'd suggest the laws are changed so the bowler can request the umpire to give an official warning to the batsman, after whih it's fair game.

Posted by subbuamdavadi on (August 31, 2012, 6:04 GMT)

Every lay cricket follower seems to have more common sense than the administrators and the team members/captain of the batsman who has been Mankaded!

Posted by shrastogi on (August 31, 2012, 5:52 GMT)

Totally agree with Kartik. The batsmen had been warned and if in county cricket batsmen go with this belief that bowlers mankading them would take back their decision then its plainly wrong as it allows batsmen to get away with anything. I dont think Surrey should have any reason to regret.

Posted by rajpan on (August 31, 2012, 5:03 GMT)

Kartik did nothing wrong. Actually, this farce has to be stopped. Change the rules so that a bowler should warn the batsman officially and the warning should be registered with umpire. The umpire should officially notify the batsman that he has been formally warned (like one short pitched delivery per over). After that, that batsman should be liable to be declared run out for backing up too much, by any bowler of the fielding side, in that particular innings and no fuss !!

Posted by Adeel9 on (August 31, 2012, 4:41 GMT)

Kartik already gave a warning in the same over which was not even required on his part as per the rules. Whatever happened was completely within the rules. Will someone tell me how acting within the rules against the spirit of cricket? What's against spirit of cricket is to give undue favour to the batsman. Also, another unbelievable thing has happened that people are united in the comments section!

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 3:27 GMT)

too much talk of pride and professionalism in the ECB and none absolutely noon on display. this is nothing give the players back to their respected nations, england has always prospered at another person/country's expense its high time we stop this and protect the cricket and players in teams which are trying to make a mark in the international arena Ireland, Scotland, afgan, Nz and many more. dont send your players to england!!

Posted by PACERONE on (August 31, 2012, 3:23 GMT)

What is Trescothic cross about?What Batty should do is have his batsmen start running down the wicket as the Somerset bowler runs in.by the time he gets to the wicket he should be halfway down.Trescothic would then be very happy.The spirit of the game has been preserved.Maybe they will start forgetting about all the other rules.

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 2:59 GMT)

LOL its country cricket like anyone cares. display your zeal for spirit of cricket in international cricket then it may have some value. which we have never ever seen from eng.

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 2:12 GMT)

Have to agree, I'm a massive Somerset supporter but backing up too far is a schoolboy error and it wasn't like Barrow wasn't warned first. I have no sympathy and didn't even realise it would be taken so badly. Bell's was different - he thought tea had been called. In this instance, Barrow was trying a steal a few inches, even after he'd been warned.

Posted by itsthewayuplay on (August 31, 2012, 2:03 GMT)

I don't get it - what is the mistake that Batty is supposed to have made. The only person that should be apologising should be Alex Barrow to his team for throwing his wicket away after being warned by the bowler. The batsman is attempting to gain an unfair advantage when he backs up too far and it's also highly distracting for the bowler. Aside from the technical aspect of any sport, you've got to know the rules of the game you play and follow them.

Posted by LeverocksLunch on (August 31, 2012, 1:59 GMT)

What nonsense! How can it be within the spirit of the game for a batsmen to gain an advantage, and then continue to do so despite being warned. The batsmen was grossly wrong to continue to do this AFTER being warned.

Good on Kartik for warning him first; after that all bets are off. Batty was quite right not to withdraw the appeal. This needs to be sorted out now; one day it will occur in the last over of a World Cup Final and there will be a riot.

Posted by   on (August 31, 2012, 1:45 GMT)

Someone should show Gareth Batty this "discussion", cos I've never seen such unity amongst cricket fans. In fact lets take it one step further and re-write the rule such that the non-striker always gets a warning, and if he repeats the offence he's out. Frankly if this is the major talking point from this round of county matches its no wonder so few people take an interest.

Posted by QingdaoXI on (August 31, 2012, 1:44 GMT)

This year in CB series in one of the League match Young Sri Lankan Batsmen Lahiru Thirrimanne ws backing too much after the warning and Ashwin warned him more than twice but still he was not understanding, even the commentators say they are loss of word and its ridiculous, bu it was sensibly captaincy of Dhoni who turned down the verdict and another sensible captain Mahela send a message to lahiru not to do it again but he tried on doing, it was nothing but taking undue advantage even after warning several times, so what should fielding team expect of this situation. Now when i again saw him playing against India in 5 odi seris he has quite learn it fast and is not leaving the crease to take undue advantage, so in short i want to say that if batsmen do it reapeatedly after warning than even home team captain should not support him. Lahiru was aquick learner and has learn from the mistake and i hope same Barrow will do it, if not than he is going aganist spirit of the game.

Posted by bobagorof on (August 31, 2012, 1:44 GMT)

Maybe next time Alex Barrow will heed the warning the bowler gives him for wandering out of the crease. Why is it that people seem to be so focused on the bowlers following the rules (front foot no-balls, limiting the number of bouncers, wides when an inch outside leg stump) but the batsmen can get away with anything (reverse sweeps, wandering down the pitch before the ball is bowled)? The batsman received a warning for not obeying the rules of the game - a warning he was not required to receive - and he infringed again. I really don't see what the issue is.

Posted by D.V.C. on (August 31, 2012, 1:36 GMT)

I agree with Kartik. The batsmen need to take responsibility for their actions in these situations.

Posted by torsha on (August 31, 2012, 1:19 GMT)

Why Surrey needs to express regret? Kartik already warned him before doing it second time. There is a rule of mankading in ICC. If you don't want mankading then remove this rule as simple is that.

Posted by tassietiger85 on (August 31, 2012, 1:02 GMT)

Man, the reporting of this story is itself so frustrating. Are we really to believe the batsman 'wandered' out of his crease? Surely he did not 'wander', but rather was with genuine intent attempting to gain an advantage by leaving the crease during or indeed before the bowler had delivered the ball. Fair enough, push the boundaries if you can. But, if you have been caught and then warned, it is the batsman's responsibility to take care not to be caught out of his ground. I find it distasteful that this has been reported as some kind of heinous act on behalf of Kartik and Batty. Why, within the English scene, is it a batsman's privilege to flout the rules, and if challenged, this to be deemed against the spirit of the game? This controversy, and the reaction of the fans on the day, is in fact thoroughly illogical. I dare cricinfo to conduct a poll, citing the true circumstance, to see which side most readers would support...

Posted by sriharic on (August 31, 2012, 0:36 GMT)

What about the spirit of cricket when the "runner" gains undue (albeit small) advantage by getting a bit closer to the other end? If you claim that the game is brought to disrepute by claiming such a wicket, I think wandering out of the crease and then claiming unsportsman-like behavior is worse!

Posted by Cifar on (August 31, 2012, 0:12 GMT)

@vxttemp, i agree with you totally. Is the rule written against the spirit of the game ? or to preserve the spirit of the game ?... The situation in the IND vs ENG test last year was a bit different and Dhoni's decision was commendable considering the kind of position Ind were and it was completely in the spirit of the game.... Batty doesn't need to regret at all.

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (August 30, 2012, 23:46 GMT)

What on earth is Batty apologising for? It's totally fair game to run the guy out and certainly no more against the spirit of the game than Prior's wonderfully slick stumping of Morkel. What do they want after all??Free runs?? Somerset should be apologising for their fans booing and unwarranted rage at our guys. Take them down tomorrow, Surrey!!

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 23:42 GMT)

Personally, I don't see the problem!

Posted by malcolmnashisagreatbowler on (August 30, 2012, 23:38 GMT)

A quick question for all who say it is not in the spirit of the game, How far would it be acceptable to wander down the wicket before that becomes 'not in the spirit of the game'? 5 yards, 11 yards, 21 yards. In my view the bowler has seen that this is happening and warned the non striker that he is aware of the situation. The non striker has not heeded the warning and then under the laws of the game been run out.

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 23:36 GMT)

As a neutral (I am a South African living in Sussex) I cannot see how this brings the game into disrepute. The batsman need to obey the rules. Kartik acted in the spirit of the game by giving a warning while this is not a requirement. The rules are the rules, you cannot have a game without it.

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 23:33 GMT)

Been playing club cricket in england for 28 years and it's considered good practise to warn the striker first and on the second occasion run him out. Kartik observed that in my book and the batsman should've known better. No sympathy.

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 23:31 GMT)

As a South African I cannot see how this can bring the game into disrepute. Where do you draw the line. Can the non-striker now start walking halfway up the pitch before the ball is delivered to score a run? The rules are the rules and if the batsman do not want to keep to them he will be dismissed! The bowler was being a gentleman by warning him earlier.

Posted by kpacey on (August 30, 2012, 23:30 GMT)

This notion that a wandering batsman should be immune from being run out despite warnings seems only to exist in English first class matches. It wouldn'tbe an issue in the club league games I've played or at school.it's considered "polite"to issue a warning but as a young spin bowler i was taught to do this verbally,prior to even running up to bowl my first ball if i thought it was likely. Surely if Kartik issued a warning it was along the lines "if you do that again I'm going to run you out"......so?!

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 23:24 GMT)

I dont understand the problem. In baseball, it's pretty simple-- you want to leave a base. You're most welcome. There won't be any warning when they they take you out. You wanted a head start as a runner. So, it's the runner who is against the spirit of the game.

Posted by Rising_Edge1234 on (August 30, 2012, 22:33 GMT)

strike the law from the books. it's redundant.

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 22:28 GMT)

32/32 comments agree that Bowler did the right thing. Cool stuff.

Posted by Marvin on (August 30, 2012, 22:18 GMT)

Couldn't agree more. My understanding has always been that you get a warning and are the fair game for a run out if you do it again.

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 22:15 GMT)

I was there. If Khartik did warn him, he was pretty sly about it. No gesture, no pointing. Nothing.

Posted by jackiethepen on (August 30, 2012, 22:13 GMT)

Spirit of the game seems to be rather lacking by the churlish posters here. Why am I surprised?

Posted by Matttheumpire on (August 30, 2012, 22:12 GMT)

Think this is another case of first class umpires not knowing the Laws correctly: Law 42.15 states

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

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 22:10 GMT)

Why does not anyone talk about spirit of the game when the non-striker effectively tries to "cheat" by standing a yard or two outside the popping crease? When the bowler has already warned once he has done his bit for preserving the spirit of cricket. What did the non-striker do towards the same goal? Take a stroll again.... English county cricket needs to understand it is no longer 1900 when "gentlemen" played cricket for fun. It is now a world of competitive cricket. The batting team should have apologized for the breach by the non-striker and not the bowling team.

Posted by saishenoy on (August 30, 2012, 22:10 GMT)

Taking off early is akin to the runner leaving the bag to steal a base in baseball. I don't get where the spirit if the game is really involved here... the runner clearly has an advantage by leaving the crease earlier. One option is to call the first run short (the bowler can appeal, and just like no ball checks we have today you check if the runner did take off early). The short run will clearly disincentivize taking off early, and not bring in a question of "stupid" honor.

Posted by BRUTALANALYST on (August 30, 2012, 22:01 GMT)

HE'D ALREADY BEEN WARNED IN THE SAME OVER !!! WHY IS THIS A BIG DEAL ? HE IS LUCKY HE GOT A SECOND CHANCE NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HERE AT ALL.

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:54 GMT)

The only player who should apologise is Barrow and that is to him team mates!

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:53 GMT)

It is trying to get an unfair advantage to back up too much. If he was warned he was out. Well within the spirit of the game.

Posted by attilathecricketer on (August 30, 2012, 21:52 GMT)

Nothing wrong. Damn spirit of cricket always favours batsman. Was bowling the other day when batsman tonked me for six but trod on his wicket - however, neither umpire had seen it so 'spirit of cricket' meant given as six. Batty did right as others have said move on and have a beer.

Posted by vxttemp on (August 30, 2012, 21:51 GMT)

Kartik did the right thing, what is he supposed to do? If we do not allow Mankading, as a batsman I can cover half of the pitch even before the bowler delivers. I totally agree, rules are rules for everyone. They are written and Karthik is not the first person doing this. Batsman should be well aware of this.

Posted by explorer76 on (August 30, 2012, 21:47 GMT)

I don't understand why is it considered against the "spirit of the game" to run out a batsman this way. The batsman had been warned already and still persisted with his act. The non-striker is supposed to remain in his crease until the ball is bowled. If he does not follow this clear rule then he should be penalized. If Mankading is such an evil practice then there should be some other clear way to penalize the non-striker in this case. Maybe deduct 5 runs from the team total every time the non-striker wanders out of the crease ahead of time. It is unacceptable that batsmen are always allowed to get away with this clear violation of rules.

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:46 GMT)

Can someone explain how the so called mankading is different from run out n how only this thing affects the spirit of cricket? So if a batsman claims he unknowingly left the ball pitched outside the off stump thinking it would go past but it came back and broke the stumps...should the opponent captain give him another life?

Posted by Jim1207 on (August 30, 2012, 21:46 GMT)

The batsman has been warned in the same over? and still did not mind staying back? and that's more offensive to the "spirit of the game" than warning (spoon-feed) the batsman once, then get him out and then apologize for doing so! If that's considered "unthinkable" and "astonishing", then please don't play cricket. You're bringing disrepute to the great game by talking too much about its spirit while your actions do not show any semblance of it.

Posted by Alexk400 on (August 30, 2012, 21:41 GMT)

Murali karthik is right ..there is no disrpute...baloney

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:40 GMT)

Why have rules which is against the spirit f the game. Funny people, Funny Rule. :)

Posted by NaniIndCri on (August 30, 2012, 21:39 GMT)

If that rule is not to be implemented and is not in "Spirit" of the game, why have the rule at all? Its a proper wicket unless you have no sense.

Posted by yorkshire-86 on (August 30, 2012, 21:39 GMT)

How can you compate the Bell incident with a mankad? Bell genuinly believed the ball was dead, and wa not trying to steal a run. When someone is mankaded, they are CHEATING by trying to steal a run before the ball is bowled, and the bowler should be congratulated for making a CHEAT look a fool. Why all the negative thoughts towards mankading?

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:37 GMT)

This is not a statistically accurate measurement, but 100% of the comments here seem to agree that warning before Mankading doesn't violate spirit of cricket!

Posted by jango_moh on (August 30, 2012, 21:37 GMT)

agree with all the folks here... why is this guy aplogising... warning the batsman first(even tho its not needed) is in the spirit of the game... running him out after that is teaching him a good lesson about the spirit of the game!!! the batsman should come out and say he is sorry!!!!

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:31 GMT)

Not sure why all the batsman cry including the grt Trescothick? Will a batsman agree and be happy if he gets out through a NO BALL? Let the batsman cry. We all know, 99% of the rule favours the batsman just this 1% the bowlers have. No one talks about "spirit of cricket" when the batsman leave the crease early and taking the advantage. Growup "batsman" You can't be warned everyball. Batty and Kartik should be not feel bad. Rules are there to be followed...

Posted by The_other_side on (August 30, 2012, 21:30 GMT)

Spirit of cricket comes into play when somebody has been wrongly given out but not when a wicket is taken according to rules. Batsman gave Kartik a chance despite having received a warning and Kartik took it. I think one should ponder about reckless approach of the batsman and not Kartik's lack of game spirit. I think, especially here, spirit of cricket is being used as that spirit which can be poured into any bottle conveniently as required

Posted by Nutcutlet on (August 30, 2012, 21:27 GMT)

It's all in the warning. One had been given and after that there should be no cause for complaint. What should be written into the Laws? Two warnings? To be dismissed in this way seems to be contrary to the spirit of the game, but it could be construed as the batsman attempting to take an unfair advantage by stealing a run from, say 18 yards. Suppose a result hinged on the batting side taking a run off the final ball, and the non-striker decided to make the task a little easier by starting his run before the ball had been delivered - who would be contravening the spirit of the game then?

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:24 GMT)

Agreed that no apology should be given here, or even accepted. A warning was delivered, the batsman chose to ignore it, he was run out. Everyone knows the rules, that is not an excuse. There is no sharp practice here. If you wish to back up, you must accept the risk.

Batty is entitled to his view. We can legitimately and in good faith disagree on what the spirit of cricket demands. But I believe my view is correct. Backing up to steal runs is part of the game, but it must carry risk.

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:23 GMT)

Batsman needs to be in his crease, I dont think even a warning is required...just get over it

Posted by kirands on (August 30, 2012, 21:21 GMT)

Kartik did the right thing, so what's the fuss all about ? He had warned the batsman of the violation in moving out of his crease before the ball had been bowled, so what's wrong in Kartik removing the bails when the batsman has moved out ? Kartik got it perfectly right, there is no need for the fielding team to apologize. Get on with life, that's how the game is played.

Posted by Shajadul on (August 30, 2012, 21:20 GMT)

If the batsman is warned, then it's corrct thing to do next time....cricket is getting more competitive...

Posted by JerryV on (August 30, 2012, 21:19 GMT)

Don't see the problem here. Kartik warned the batsman. The batsman decided to chance it again. Paid for it. What is wrong with this picture?

Posted by anuradea on (August 30, 2012, 21:18 GMT)

If it is not allowed or frowned upon, please remove it from the rule book. Or we are confusing the upcoming youngsters as how to follow the rules. If it is in the rule book that a batsman is not allowed to back up earlier than he is allowed to and if does so, it no different to any other way of dismissal in the rule book. If we carry on like this very soon, a bowler may have to warn the batsman before he clean bowls him or gets him out LBW or all the other ways. It is absolutely crazy to have someone warn you before you get them out and once you do so having to call them back although the batsman had cheated by trying to take an early start. All is fair if anything is within the rules and here only the batsman had broken the rules thinking he will not be given out due to the "spirit of the Game"!!!!!. Shouldn't the "spirit of the game" be thought of by the batsman as well. Good for you Batty, atleast the worldwide batsmen will now think twice before trying to CHEAT.

Posted by WilliamFranklin on (August 30, 2012, 21:18 GMT)

I don't think it would be completely wrong of me to suggest that, had it been a Surrey batsman run out in those circumstances, there would be fair less anger and outcry.

Didn't Somerset once declare in a list A match?

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:17 GMT)

The damger is the same basman could steal a quicksingle. That's what Kartik was trying to prevent. What's there to apologise for?

Posted by The_other_side on (August 30, 2012, 21:15 GMT)

I do not know about the spirit because there is a law that governs mankeded out. Even when Viru withdrew his appeal, Mahela the Srilankan captain said that Thirumanne was foolish to wander out of the crease. So if the batsman who wanders is foolish why and what should the bowler be shameful of. Even Ian Bell apologised for bieng careless when he wandered of in that test where he got the reprive. It looks like If you mankad some body and then you are nice enough to withdraw then the bats man will say a few words of wisdom. If you do not with draw you are a disgrace. Wow what Justice!!!

Posted by mrmonty on (August 30, 2012, 21:10 GMT)

Spirit of cricket, as the game in its present form, listens to batsmen only. Spirit Schmirit.

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:06 GMT)

I don't understand why the umpire asked the fielding captain in such situation.Does the captain is asked at the time of other dismissals?

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:06 GMT)

If anyone who appeals is going to be castigated and frowned upon, why not erase the rule? The phrase "spirit of cricket" doesn't mean what it used to, say, twenty years ago. The onus shouldn't be on the captain to worry about the spirit when it comes to appealing - rewriting the rule book would put an end to the requirement of captains being guardians of the game in addition to leading their team. This isn't cheating, is it? As another fictitious Englishman would've said, it's "preposterous".

Posted by veggie1 on (August 30, 2012, 21:04 GMT)

If Somerset had needed 1 to win off the last ball and the non-striker was waiting half way down the track, would Batty still have to apologise?

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 21:04 GMT)

there is only 2 ways to stop this happening again, batsmen learn not to back up when the bowler is bowling or the MCC laws of the game are changed to not allow mankading. Anyway, Murali Kartik was in the right here, he warned Alex Barrow 3 balls earlier not to back up while he was bowling. Then 3 balls later he decides he would go wandering out of his crease while Kartik is bowling, it was absolute stupidity on Alex Barrow's part. I am a Somerset supporter before anyone says anything.

Posted by windiesyouth.12 on (August 30, 2012, 21:00 GMT)

and of course it had to be a game involving KP...controversy jus keeps following you my man...haha

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 20:59 GMT)

The batsman was warned. The media is, yet again, blowing things out of proportion. Even in this article, the fact that the runner was warned is presented in the last line. Give the bowler full credit here.

Personally, I don't see why the batsman has to be warned at all. The runner should stop backing up and risking getting out. It's the runner who is going against the spirit of the game by gaining an unfair advantage before the ball becomes live!

Posted by Munkeymomo on (August 30, 2012, 20:56 GMT)

@creekeetman. The first sensible comment regarding this issue. After all, that's what cricket is all about. Beer. :p

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 20:47 GMT)

He was warned, as per the spirit of the game, and then run out - in the same over! He's out and has learnt a lesson. Batty shouldn't have to apologise.

Posted by Newlandsfaithful on (August 30, 2012, 20:36 GMT)

Agree with Kartik. What more can you do if the batting side wont respond to a warning? Surely it's bad cricket to allow such an error to go unpunished. In the modern day game run-outs are often determined by millimeters and it is being completely unfair to the bowling side to allow the batting side to take advantage of them by running early and claiming impunity supposedly because its in the "spirit of the game". It's nothing more than cheating. Otherwise why can't batsmen just start running right away after a fast bowler makes his turn? Steal a single. And if anybody dares to run the batsmen out - well "its not in the spirit of the game". Rules are rules. Out is out. Mankading is the only way to keep batsmen honest.

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 20:33 GMT)

He'd been warned that over, so what's the problem?

Posted by   on (August 30, 2012, 20:25 GMT)

Once a batsman has been warned once, what is a bowler supposed to do? Warn him every ball? If you are run out backing up after a warning you are extremely careless, and Kartik and Batty have nothing to get defensive about.

Posted by creekeetman on (August 30, 2012, 20:17 GMT)

its not a honeymoon, its a cricket match, and the batsman had already been warned... out... correct decison, move on and have a beer, or 6.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
County Results
Hampshire v Warwickshire at Lord's - Sep 15, 2012
Hampshire won (lost fewer wickets)
Derbyshire v Hampshire at Derby - Sep 11-14, 2012
Derbyshire won by 6 wickets
Essex v Yorkshire at Chelmsford - Sep 11-14, 2012
Yorkshire won by 239 runs
Lancashire v Surrey at Liverpool - Sep 11-14, 2012
Match drawn
Leics v Gloucs at Leicester - Sep 11-14, 2012
Leics won by 2 wickets
Notts v Warwickshire at Nottingham - Sep 11-14, 2012
Match drawn
All recent results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days