Aakash Chopra
Aakash Chopra Aakash ChopraRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Former India opener; author of Beyond the Blues, an account of the 2007-08 Ranji Trophy season

Why bring the spirit of the game into it?

When India appealed for run-out against a non-striker who was backing up, and against a batsman who touched the ball with his hand, they were following the laws. How can that be morally wrong?

Aakash Chopra

March 8, 2012

Comments: 66 | Text size: A | A

Virender Sehwag withdrew R Ashwin's appeal for a run-out against Lahiru Thirimanne, who was backing up too far at the non-striker's end before the bowler delivered the ball, India v Sri Lanka, CB Series, Brisbane, February 21, 2012
The umpires' duty is to give a decision on an appeal and not to ask the captain if he'd like to reconsider the appeal © Getty Images
Enlarge

Many greats of the sport have called "mankading" shameful and petty, yet it continues to happen every now and then, sparking outrage and highlighting a conflict between cricket's laws and its ethical code. The world of cricket seems to be divided on this. The likes of Ian Chappell believe stupidity must be punished and that there should be no moral obligation to make allowances for it whatsoever. Then there are those who insist upon a cricket conscience.

Let's face it - there is no sport without its spirit, and equally there's no sport without its laws. So how does one decide between the two? Should Law 38 of the Laws of Cricket be followed to the letter, or should it be sacrificed on moral grounds?

Let's take the case of R Ashwin running out Lahiru Thirimanne, the most recent such dismissal. Thirimanne was backing up too far, and Ashwin, it is believed, had already cautioned him. Thirimanne didn't pay heed, and therefore chose to act at his own risk in spite of knowing the law. According to the rule, Ashwin could have dismissed Thirimanne immediately, without giving him prior notice, but he complied with the standards of fair play and sportsmanship and warned Thirimanne of his transgression before finally removing the bails. Such a dismissal, which ought to have been a simple umpiring decision, snowballed into a controversy, and worse, a moral debate.

Let's take the onus of safeguarding ethics away from the bowler alone. A batsman who chooses to back up before the ball is bowled is actually attempting to gain an unfair advantage by reducing the length of the pitch for a quick run. Shouldn't he be penalised for flouting the rules and, in fact, cheating?

On the contrary, however, Ashwin's appeal seemed immoral to many. The umpires got together and asked Virender Sehwag, the stand-in captain, to reconsider the appeal, following which the Indians withdrew the it, everyone went home happy, and the team got a pat on the back for honouring the "spirit of the game".

The vexing questions, though, remained unanswered. Shouldn't abiding by the rules be part of the spirit of the game? The lawmakers clearly foresaw batsmen taking unfair advantage repeatedly and so created the law in question. Shouldn't the rulebook be followed to eliminate doubts or biases? In any case, since when did umpires start questioning players' morals, or asking them to abandon a portion of the law in the name of spirit?

When Kapil Dev mankaded Peter Kirsten, he was painted as a villain. Though Kapil had warned Kirsten more than once before he ran him out, it was enough that he was on the wrong side of the "spirit of the game" for him to be crucified. What is baffling is that those who choose to take the moral high ground over mankading hardly ever scrutinise the batsmen involved.

The iniquity attached to such dismissals forced India to overlook Thirimanne's repeated advances up the pitch. And they knew the world would be up in arms had Thirimanne been given out mankaded. This is worrying in itself. Why did India have to worry about moral disapproval? They didn't cheat, fix matches or sledge.

Last summer at Trent Bridge during the England-India series, Ian Bell walked off for tea believing that an Eoin Morgan shot off the final ball of the over had gone for four. However, the ball had actually remained active, and as Bell headed for the pavilion, MS Dhoni removed the bails. Technically Bell was out of his ground and hence could be dismissed. This time it wasn't the umpires but the opposition captain and coach reportedly who requested Dhoni to withdraw his appeal. Bell himself later confessed he had been a bit "stupid". So why call the punishment for a stupid error "bad cricket" or "poor spirit"?

 
 
Isn't refusing to walk after nicking the ball, or appealing when you know the batsman isn't out more unethical than mankading? Yet we conveniently treat the former two as a part of today's "cricketing culture", but mankading is considered a crime
 

In another recent incident, David Hussey, during a tense CB Series match at the SCG, stopped the fielder's incoming throw with an outstretched hand while taking a tight single. The Indians rightly appealed and the on-field umpires referred the matter upstairs. The rulebook says that if a batsman uses his hand to stop the ball from hitting his body, he cannot be given out, but if it is done to prevent the ball from hitting the stumps, the batsman is undoubtedly out. How was the third umpire in this case supposed to judge what Hussey meant to do, considering he was a fair way from the stumps?

Later in that match, when Brett Lee was in the way of Sachin Tendulkar as he tried to complete a run, the batsman lost momentum and a few precious seconds and was run out. The umpires thought Lee had gone towards the ball in order to field it and didn't seem to have purposely blocked Tendulkar's path, so the decision went in the fielding team's favour. Once again, how does one decide what Lee's intentions were? Going by the same moral yardstick as in the Thirimanne run-out, shouldn't Lee have been asked to reconsider his appeal, since it was, after all, not in the "right spirit"?

Who decides what falls within the purview of the spirit of the game, and how are those decisions arrived at? Most importantly, who are we to judge someone's morality based on our own, often warped and somewhat flexible, sense of ethics?

Isn't refusing to walk after nicking the ball, or appealing when you know the batsman isn't out, more unethical than mankading? Yet we conveniently treat the former two as a part of today's "cricketing culture", but mankading is considered a crime.

The roots of these so-called ethics took hold many years ago. Cricket was never a fair or equal sport. Till the 1960s it was played in England between rich "amateurs" and poor "professionals". The amateurs, men of wealth and standing, laid down the rules - to suit themselves, naturally. Amateurs and professionals, though they played for the same teams, didn't share the same dressing rooms. Professionals were mostly brought in to bowl; batting was the amateurs' prerogative.

WG Grace's act of setting the stumps back upright after he was bowled once, and telling the umpire that the crowd had come to watch him bat is now a part of cricketing folklore. It wasn't fair but it was still thought of as cricket.

Laws were introduced later to make the sport more egalitarian, and these have, over the years, made cricket fairer than it ever was. However, we still seem a bit vague on the issues of legality and ethics. Accepting the umpire's decision, no matter what, used to be a sacrosanct rules of cricket. But the advent of DRS allows a player to challenge those decisions too. Isn't that immoral? Against the spirit?

In the past a batsman could request a substitute runner in case he was injured, and usually the request was granted. But the new rules clearly state that regardless of the nature of the injury (including external injury) a batsman will not be given a substitute runner. Obviously somewhere along the line the lawmakers have grown to mistrust players. However, this does not seem to apply in cases like handling the ball and obstructing a batsman, where the umpires are asked to judge players' intentions.

Once Ashwin made that appeal, the umpires had no business to ask Sehwag if he wanted to uphold it, which was well within the law, because by doing so they put him under moral scrutiny. Ashwin was playing by the book by appealing, and everyone, players, umpires, fans, must accept it and move on. Once Hussey's dismissal was referred upstairs, the third umpire should have been asked only to judge the evidence, and not Hussey's intentions. If Hussey wasn't found guilty of obstructing the field, how can a batsman who fends bouncers off with his hand be deemed guilty of handling the ball? (Law 33 allows the batsman to use his hand in self-defence.) What precedent are we setting?

We may want to laud players for their ethics because of our own conditioning and sense of fair play, but let's not make someone a villain if he chooses to do otherwise. Following the rules cannot, by any means, be considered as being against the spirit of the game.

Former India opener Aakash Chopra is the author of Out of the Blue, an account of Rajasthan's 2010-11 Ranji Trophy victory. His website is here and his Twitter feed here

RSS Feeds: Aakash Chopra

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by GVR1965 on (March 10, 2012, 16:57 GMT)

Its simple- a law which is not practiced is perceived as unfair. Then why do you have the law! Change it to suit the game and spirit of the game. If a non-striker is getting the advantage citing the spirit of the game- why not a striker also get the same treatment- a wicket keeper can warn him before stumping, a runner can be warned for not reaching the line! If you need to avoid the controversies - the concerned authorities only have to change the law- Since, from generations, if a law is not practiced then, naturally it should be changed. If the law is not changed, it only leads to endless debates after every attempt on mankading!

Posted by jever03 on (March 9, 2012, 21:04 GMT)

Mankading is as fair as backing up. As a German I always wondered why it's not done more often as it is an attractive addition to the sport and keeps batsman on their toes.

Posted by soumyas on (March 9, 2012, 14:47 GMT)

Indians shouldn't give any chances to Srilankan's as spirit of the game, because we know that how bad ppl they are, Indian's should not forget how they denied a century for Sehwag by bowling a NO-BALL. when only 1 run needed for his century and to win. had that incident happened just before murali's 800th wicket we had a gr8 chances to make murali stranded on numb. 799. Even though i like murali but thats how u teach lessons to cunning ppl.

Posted by PureTom on (March 9, 2012, 13:18 GMT)

I agree with the sentiment that by asking Sehwag to consider the appeal the umpires were implying that they (and therefore everyone else) did not approve of the appeal and forced his desicion. My personal feeling is that, once the ball is live, if you are caught outside your crease you are out, simple. Them's the rules, why should batsmen be allowed to cheat? I do agree with the idea of a warning first, but don't feel it should be mandatory. Thiramane was out. Tendulkar was out, seen this often enough before not to get upset about it anymore, it's more of an issue here only because it was SRT. Hussey was out, wear it or avoid it, don't play it! Nice piece, I really enjoyed it.

Posted by RogerC on (March 9, 2012, 12:18 GMT)

When a batsman hits a great straight drive and if it accidentally hits a part of the bowler's body and dismisses the non-striker who is out of the crease, nobody considers that unsporting. Though this is a completely accidental dismissal, both teams accept it. Compared to that Mankading is a genuine dismissal to punish a risk-taking batsman. Mankading is just like a stumping dismissal, effected at the bowler's end. Its time ICC give it a proper name and legalise it.

Posted by sweetspot on (March 9, 2012, 11:57 GMT)

Ashwin was perfectly right in running out the batsman like he did. In the scoreboard it would have shown "run out" and nothing else. Totally professional, now that the rules have changed and Ashwin is a sharp young man who is aware of it. Who was Thirimanne trying to fool? He did not venture out again, ONLY against Ashwin. So he knew he was pushing it, the rascal! As for Sehwag, he explained it perfectly, "We are soft, but that is who we are"! If Ganguly had been the captain, would he have stood for a moment listening to this spirit of the game nonsense when the law clearly states the batsman is out? I don't think so. He would have told the umpires to not waste his time or Ashwin's by asking these dumb questions. Kudos to all for doing what they thought was right! All except cheeky Thirimanne that is!

Posted by afzalz on (March 9, 2012, 10:54 GMT)

In addition to my previous comment, I cant help but think all these issues are blown out of proportion and made to look as if a major issue as in this article, because it involves the so called "Team India". I take your bet, if this involved a Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka for that matter, it would have been swept under the carpet as it would have been nothing but a minor incident.

Posted by WalkSchmalk on (March 9, 2012, 9:08 GMT)

Aakash, you've completely missed the point of the umpires asking Sehwag to reconsider Ashwin's appeal. They were using their own good judgement to suggest that were the appeal for Mankad been upheld, the Indian team's reputation would have taken a hit. They were essentially giving Sehwag the opportunity to consider whether he wanted to create an incident or be seen to be conciliatory. Sehwag's judgement was good and the process worked perfectly. Right or wrong, Mankading is deemed to be unsporting and the umpires' actions allowed Sehwag time to consider how it would pan out. Great umpiring. Tendulkar and Hussey were out although I suspect neither Lee nor Hussey had bad intentions.

Posted by Thommo44 on (March 9, 2012, 4:36 GMT)

Well written Aakash .. I mourned Peter Roebuck's passing but your articles have certainly gone a long way towards filling that void...on a lighter note...restrict your 'spanking' to willow on leather please!

Posted by insightfulcricketer on (March 9, 2012, 2:29 GMT)

Cricketers play in a professional age. Lee was out of line he came and stood in the way of on-rushing batsman and was not even part of the play. Batsman had to get the advantage.Simple. Hussey had no business to look at the ball but at the crease where he had to reach.Then to fend it away.Out simple. Thirmanne was backing up with bowler in motion and was out of the crease. He was out plain and simple. BCCI has to ensure that ICC is run by people who treat cricketers as professionals and the game is not treated like a pickup game played by amateurs who have 3 jobs and thus absent mindedness can be condoned.I may condone during a pickup game and take pity at the player but not when playing among professionals. Player makes a mistake he is out.Keep the game pure and simple.

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Aakash ChopraClose
Aakash Chopra Aakash Chopra is the 245th Indian to represent India in Test cricket. A batsman in the traditional mould, he played 10 Tests for India in 2003-04, and has played over 120 first-class matches. He currently plays for Delhi in the Ranji Trophy; his book Beyond the Blues was an account of the 2007-08 season. Chopra made a formidable opening combination with Virender Sehwag, which was believed to be one of the reasons for India's success in Australia and Pakistan in 2003-04. He is considered one of the best close-in fielders India has produced after Eknath Solkar.

'Ponting was an instinctive, aggressive player'

Modern Masters: Rahul Dravid and Sanjay Manjrekar discuss Ricky Ponting's technique

    MacLeod spells hope for Scotland

Allrounder Calum MacLeod's return from a faulty action is key to Scotland's World Cup hopes. By Tim Wigmore

The Australian who dares to attack spin

From lead spinner and No. 8, Steven Smith has become a central figure in the batting line-up. By Brydon Coverdale

    'Gibbs used to toss the ball like a basketball'

My XI: Erapalli Prasanna on the West Indian offspinner who had a killer instinct

Cricket's humanity resists specialisation

Jon Hotten: While major sports across the world are driving their competitors towards homogenous physical ideals, cricket seems to celebrate diversity

News | Features Last 7 days

Manic one-day chases, and daddy partnerships

Also, most brothers in a Test XI, and the fastest to 20 ODI centuries

Has international cricket begun to break up?

The gap between the haves and the have-nots is growing wider, and the disenchantment is forcing a devaluation of Test cricket among weaker teams

Well worth the wait

Zulfiqar Babar missed five seasons between his first two first-class matches, and was 34 when he finally made his Test debut, but he is quickly making up for all the lost time with his artful left-arm spin

Younis Khan and the art of scoring hundreds

Out of 70 batsmen who've scored 15 or more Test hundreds only five are from Pakistan, but Younis Khan's appetite for hundreds matches that of some of the top contemporary batsmen

Australia outdone in every way

Surviving into the final session of the last day cannot disguise the fact that Australia's continued inability to play spin contributed to an all-round thrashing

News | Features Last 7 days

    Has international cricket begun to break up? (83)

    The gap between the haves and the have-nots is growing wider, and the disenchantment is forcing a devaluation of Test cricket among weaker teams

    Australia outdone in every way (51)

    Surviving into the final session of the last day cannot disguise the fact that Australia's continued inability to play spin contributed to an all-round thrashing

    Lyon low after high of 2013 (46)

    The offspinner was Australia's highest wicket-taker in 2013, but his form has dipped sharply this year

    Well worth the wait (36)

    Zulfiqar Babar missed five seasons between his first two first-class matches, and was 34 when he finally made his Test debut, but he is quickly making up for all the lost time with his artful left-arm spin

    No Ajmal, no problem for Pakistan (33)

    When a team loses its best bowler, it is expected that the team's performance will suffer. As usual, Pakistan defied the expectations