Clarification on Laws Please

A lot of unpleasantness and controversy in the Somerset v Surrey CC match at Taunton - and not a bit to do with Pietersen.

Somerset batsman Alex Barrow has just been run out by Murali Kartik for backing up too far at the bowler's end. Apparently umpire Peter Hartley asked Surrey skipper Gareth Batty three times if he wanted to withdraw the appeal but he refused to do so.

Kartik, a former Somerset player, is now being booed by the crowd whenever he gets the ball.

Two aspects for me.

Firstly, was Barrow warned before about backing up? I think an enormous amount - relating to the spirit of the game - depends on this.

Secondly, and where I would particularly appreciate help with the current Laws, is that I thought you couldn't be run out backing up anymore. I was pretty sure the Laws had changed a couple of years or so ago and seem to recall that being mentioned in the odd televised match as the non-striker dashes down the wicket before the ball is released. Have I imagined that? Don't feel the need to be polite ....

Player can be run out once warned.

I'm not too brushed up on the laws for such matters, Guildford, but I'm pretty sure the running out a backing up batsman law was reintroduced not long back. It certainly was for ODI's, anyway.

Sounds like tempers are fraying down at Taunton! Great stuff.

I would add that it is the most 'ungentlemanly' way of dismissing someone hence the umpire questioning Batty.

I'm sure it's in the rules to be able to do so but I was always taught to let the batsmen know that he was backing up to far. If he continued then whip the bails off and say "sorry but......."

Amazing what people will do to gain an advantage in the heat of the moment and when their top flight status depends on it, eh.

Thanks, chaps.

Fists - your reference to the law being 'reintroduced' probably explains it. I was sure there was a time fairly recently when you couldn't be out this way.

I appreciate - per Sean's and Stella's posts - that in the more distant past you could be out this way although it was considered most 'ungentlemanly'.

Somerset batsman Peter Trego (aka 'Pirate Pete' per JDizzle) seemed very unhappy that his partner was given out and now seems to be taking his anger out on the ball with a flurrey of fours and sixes!

You used to be able to do so, though the custom was for the bowler to personally warn the batsman first.

They then changed it to a penalty runs offence - so you get a first warning, a second warning and then 5 penalty runs to the fielding side.

But I think I'm right in saying it has now reverted back to the old system, apart from that the umpire will now warn the batsman on the first occasion.

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/ask-the-laws-department/

He can run him out before he enters his delivery stride, so before his back foot lands for the final time he can take the bails off. Whether it is within the spirit of cricket is another question. I don't know if Murali warned him first, but I was always taught that the batsman got a warning and then if he kept doing it you ran him out, like most people here by the looks of it.

I should add that for what its worth I've always thought that you should be able to be out this way, or at least shouldn't be able to score any runs if they leave their crease before the bowler enters his delivery stride. Why should a batsman effectively be able to leave his crease when he wants when a bowler would be no-balled for overstepping.

I'd be pretty damn annoyed if it happened to me.
Reminds me of the Colly incident a few years ago against New Zealand when one of their batsmen was run out due to being accidently blocked, or something along those lines.
Colly was asked to withdraw but said "NO".
He later regretted his decision. Like Fists said, in the heat of the moment, logic goes out of the window.

Was it the SL Chandimal in a Test quite recently that kept backing up ridiculous amounts time after time despite being warned. Against Aus i think.

The SL team in the end sent someone out to tell him to stop it. The Aussies were well vexed but did not run him out.

Stella wrote:
Like Fists said, in the heat of the moment, logic goes out of the window.

I suspect that as well as that there's some ''previous'' between Surrey's Kartik and certain of his former Somerset colleagues.

Kartik has just taken his fourth wicket (all LBW) which was greeted with total silence by the crowd.

Thanks for the further interest and responses. Particularly the detail from Shelsey (thought you would be up to date ) and the link from JD.

Guildford, do you play for Guildford?

Joking aren't you, Sean? The poor old chap can barely get his slippers on these days

I did hear that he and the Corporal were gonna open the bowling for Surrey {tuesday past} but were left out at the last minute.

seanmichaels wrote:Guildford, do you play for Guildford?

Sean - I see that Skye (who would be well advised to seek a refund on the expensive diversity training he recently received) and Fists have already answered this.

To confirm - no, I don't. Playing days long behind me now and I wasn't that good anyway. At my level and league (Morrant and then Fuller's), the best players were those who had been released by Guildford!

Btw, the Corporal isn't a corporal but don't tell anyone.

Back to topic.

My cyber friend and fellow Surrey poster JimBobGooner has attached a link on the ''Surrey v Somerset match thread'' in the County Cricket section in which Chris Adams discusses this dismissal.

guildfordbat wrote: Btw, the Corporal isn't a corporal but don't tell anyone.

In the world of Intelligence things are not always quite what they seems.....

It was reported that Kartik warned the batsman three balls earlier. On the other hand Adams seems clearly to accept that the non striker was not trying to gain an unfair advantage. Adams backs his captain, Batty, while saying that if he had had time to reflect he would not have pressed the appeal....

I find it strange that people can't come out and say "you know what, we warned him soon before and he was clearly out of his ground so we see nothing wrong with it".

If they take the line they are taking tonight they are basically saying that mankading somebody is never acceptable. But there has to be a penalty for a batsman leaving their crease early, surely. Otherwise they could already be half way up the pitch before the bowler even delivers, particularly in close one-day chases...

Shelsey - Adams suggests the ECB intended there to be a distinction between four day games and one dayers although they didn't make any specification.

I tend to agree with your approach and see it as being very much the batsman's fault if a warning has been given and it was recent. I wouldn't be comfortable if the warning was, say, twenty overs earlier.

There have been several changes in the law.

Shelsey is (unusually) incorrect when he says that it has reverted back to what it used to be, although only partially. JD is correct in that it has to be done before the back-foot of the bowler lands in his delivery stride (it used to be that you could do it anytime before delivering the ball - this actually makes a significant difference).

Before the original law change (which banned the process entirely, some people say in response to Mankad himself, but actually in response to Kapil Dev doing it to Kepler Wessels without prior warning) it was considered entirely unsportsmanlike not to warn someone previously. Mankad in fact did warn the aussie opener he got out in this fashion, but it was still frowned upon, which only goes to illustrate the ridiculous state of affairs we had: you were allowed to mankad someone at any time, you were expected to warn them first, and even then you probably shouldn't.

With the law as it currently stands, you have to leave your crease very very early to run a chance of being mankadded. Recently (I think it was within the last 2 years certainly), considerably after the law was changed "back" the ICC advised that the warning should not be necessary: the argument was that the law was there for a reason, and someone who left his crease before the bowler's back-foot landed was in any case himself cheating to some extent, and certainly acting in an ungentlemanly way.

Old habits die hard though, and teams continue to warn (the last episode I saw was an Indian - I think Ashwin - warning an Australian batsman just this winter). More importantly I think cricket as a whole still expects bowlers to warn first.

My opinion? it is somewhat clouded by being mankadded myself in 2006 without warning (this was before the ICC had said that this was ok) and in any case not within the laws at the time (the umpire gave me out quite incorrectly, and I may have sworn loudly for all to hear as I walked off - it's certainly the angriest I've been on a cricket field). But I firmly believe in the warning: running out someone backing up just seems so underhand, I guess it's because it's something that happens before the ball is in play. Similarly I don't like the run-out of someone who is walking off (mistakenly) having got out off a no-ball, or someone who wanders out of his crease to chat to his partner before the ball is officially dead. You haven't beaten them on the field, but by some sort of technicality.

Certainly I would be disappointed if anyone I coached tried it without warning, and expect my captain to withdraw his appeal. When I umpire I also won't give it out unless there has been a warning first.

Having said that once you've warned someone (and reports suggest Kartik had, and in fact in that over) then fair game for me. The whole point of the warning is to say "I think you may have unwittingly backed up too early; if you do it again I will assume you're deliberately trying to gain an unfair advantage, and you'll have to face the consequences".

For me, it's one of those rare issues which actually are black and white:
- no warning = unsporting and wrong.
- after warning = fine.

Mike Selig wrote:Having said that once you've warned someone (and reports suggest Kartik had, and in fact in that over) then fair game for me. The whole point of the warning is to say "I think you may have unwittingly backed up too early; if you do it again I will assume you're deliberately trying to gain an unfair advantage, and you'll have to face the consequences".

For me, it's one of those rare issues which actually are black and white:
- no warning = unsporting and wrong.
- after warning = fine.

Thanks very much, Mike, for this and your other post.

Appreciate you going through the changes. Glad I wasn't totally imaging things!

Very much agree with your ''black and white'' scenarios above. I would also flag - and I suspect you would agree - that the warning should be fairly recent. As I mentioned to Shelsey, I would be uncomfortable about it being relied upon for an appeal made, say, 20 overs later.

guildfordbat wrote:I would also flag - and I suspect you would agree - that the warning should be fairly recent. As I mentioned to Shelsey, I would be uncomfortable about it being relied upon for an appeal made, say, 20 overs later.

Absolutely.

The reports say that Kartik had warned the batsman in the same over. If that was really the case, then I see what all the fuss is about, but respectfully disagree.

The cricinfo article mentions Shewag recalling Thiramane, which is disingenuous as Ashwin hadn't warned the batsman on that occasion.

I think Kartik warned the batsman, and he was well within his rights to run him out. I don't understand all the fuss, so what does the spirit of the game means, the non striker can run half way down the pitch even before the bowler is into his stride and take quick singles whenever there is an opportunity? The nicities of the game are too much in favor of the batsman, and high time cricket in general, and English county cricket in particular do away with such conservative practices.
It is very different from the Bell situation, but I remember something similar that happened during the CB series early this year, Think it was Irfan Pathan, after warning Sri Lanka's Lahiru Tirimanne ones, Irfan ran him out but the India stand in captain Virender Sehwag withdraw the appeal. Sehwag said he did partly because of the kind of reaction this would have provoked. I felt at this point that it was nonsense, and I very much feel the fuss this time is pretty much that.

If he warned him then yes, no fuss needed.

msp83 wrote:
It is very different from the Bell situation, but I remember something similar that happened during the CB series early this year, Think it was Irfan Pathan, after warning Sri Lanka's Lahiru Tirimanne ones, Irfan ran him out but the India stand in captain Virender Sehwag withdraw the appeal. Sehwag said he did partly because of the kind of reaction this would have provoked. I felt at this point that it was nonsense, and I very much feel the fuss this time is pretty much that.

I think it was Ashwin, and I think Ashwin hadn't previously warned the batsman (although Pathan may have earlier), so I think Shewag got that one right.

I remember Mike being mankaded, he wasn't happy

It nearly happened to me once, but even stranger. The bowler basically ran through his delivery stride without delivering the ball, at which point I had left my crease (as indeed you should do). The bowler then turned around, lobbed the ball at the stumps from about three yards away and appealed. I just said "that's illegal" and refused to leave the crease. The umpire eventually (obviously unaware of the whole "delivery stride" stuff) settled on deciding this was my one warning. Now considering I was on 0 at the time (not even sure I'd faced a ball), and we were being roundly thrashed anyway, it all felt a bit unnecessary.

At least in Mike's case it was a very close game (we lost by three runs in the end) and he was batting extremely well (we'd have won the game had he stayed in). Also, it was an important game (winner-takes-all pretty much - the team winning would go through to the semis). Still disgusting and unacceptable behaviour to my eyes, and I let their coach know it in no uncertain terms. I then had the unenviable task of trying to calm Mike down

As for this incident, I agree with the general view on this forum: Kartik had warned him just before, so was well within his rights to do so. Clearly the batsman was trying to gain an advantage, so has to accept the consequences. Once more, referring to personal experience, I've been warned a couple of times for backing up too far, in indoor cricket (where every run is vital, so it's important to get those extra yards in, but sometimes I overstep the mark). I had no problem with it, and calmed down on my backing up slightly afterwards just to be sure. I imagine (though I can't say for sure) I'd have accepted being mankaded after such a warning.

guildfordbat wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Guildford, do you play for Guildford?

Sean - I see that Skye (who would be well advised to seek a refund on the expensive diversity training he recently received) and Fists have already answered this.

To confirm - no, I don't. Playing days long behind me now and I wasn't that good anyway. At my level and league (Morrant and then Fuller's), the best players were those who had been released by Guildford!

Btw, the Corporal isn't a corporal but don't tell anyone.

Ah ok. Used to play in the fullers in my younger days. Much better league format than the SC which we now play in.

Mike Selig wrote:

msp83 wrote:
It is very different from the Bell situation, but I remember something similar that happened during the CB series early this year, Think it was Irfan Pathan, after warning Sri Lanka's Lahiru Tirimanne ones, Irfan ran him out but the India stand in captain Virender Sehwag withdraw the appeal. Sehwag said he did partly because of the kind of reaction this would have provoked. I felt at this point that it was nonsense, and I very much feel the fuss this time is pretty much that.

I think it was Ashwin, and I think Ashwin hadn't previously warned the batsman (although Pathan may have earlier), so I think Shewag got that one right.

You are right there on Ashwin mike, thanks.
But Ashwin had warned Tirimanne though not through the umpires. The rule never states that you have to be warned, Kartik had warned the batsman nevertheless, and this fuss is totaly unnecessary.

Backing up too early is cheating - plain and simple. An umpire does not "warn" a bowler when he oversteps, he no-balls him.
Batsman should simply not leave their creases until the ball is bowled and they certainly should not do it after being given a warning.
Totally agree with those who've said that if the batsman was warned it was quite OK to run him out in this way.

msp83 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

msp83 wrote:
It is very different from the Bell situation, but I remember something similar that happened during the CB series early this year, Think it was Irfan Pathan, after warning Sri Lanka's Lahiru Tirimanne ones, Irfan ran him out but the India stand in captain Virender Sehwag withdraw the appeal. Sehwag said he did partly because of the kind of reaction this would have provoked. I felt at this point that it was nonsense, and I very much feel the fuss this time is pretty much that.

I think it was Ashwin, and I think Ashwin hadn't previously warned the batsman (although Pathan may have earlier), so I think Shewag got that one right.

You are right there on Ashwin mike, thanks.
But Ashwin had warned Tirimanne though not through the umpires. The rule never states that you have to be warned, Kartik had warned the batsman nevertheless, and this fuss is totaly unnecessary.

The law has never stated that you have to be warned, but it has always been felt the "right" thing to do, even after the ICC came out and said "you really don't need to". If Ashwin warned Thirimanne then Shewag should have kept the appeal. I admit I can't remember much beyond seeing the incident and thinking "that's going to cause a storm".

To sir Fred, as an umpire when I umpire young players I actually DO tend to warn bowlers if they get close to bowling no-balls (particularly back-foot no-balls where the youngster may not even be aware of the law), but that is my soft side showing (like Nasser, I would probably give someone not out cause "he looks like a nice lad").

Mike Selig wrote:

msp83 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

msp83 wrote:
It is very different from the Bell situation, but I remember something similar that happened during the CB series early this year, Think it was Irfan Pathan, after warning Sri Lanka's Lahiru Tirimanne ones, Irfan ran him out but the India stand in captain Virender Sehwag withdraw the appeal. Sehwag said he did partly because of the kind of reaction this would have provoked. I felt at this point that it was nonsense, and I very much feel the fuss this time is pretty much that.

I think it was Ashwin, and I think Ashwin hadn't previously warned the batsman (although Pathan may have earlier), so I think Shewag got that one right.

You are right there on Ashwin mike, thanks.
But Ashwin had warned Tirimanne though not through the umpires. The rule never states that you have to be warned, Kartik had warned the batsman nevertheless, and this fuss is totaly unnecessary.

The law has never stated that you have to be warned, but it has always been felt the "right" thing to do, even after the ICC came out and said "you really don't need to". If Ashwin warned Thirimanne then Shewag should have kept the appeal. I admit I can't remember much beyond seeing the incident and thinking "that's going to cause a storm".

To sir Fred, as an umpire when I umpire young players I actually DO tend to warn bowlers if they get close to bowling no-balls (particularly back-foot no-balls where the youngster may not even be aware of the law), but that is my soft side showing (like Nasser, I would probably give someone not out cause "he looks like a nice lad").

I was the same with umpiring on no balls Mike - in the lower leagues of NZ club cricket the batting team supplies umpires, and if you showed willing on something like that it made the lack of LBW calls easier to stomach .

Maybe umpires should be given the responsibility regarding backing up and the referee/off field umpire the responsibility of no balls?

Mike Selig wrote:

.... that is my soft side showing (like Nasser, I would probably give someone not out cause "he looks like a nice lad").

I guess Gemma Dunning could pad away all day!

Mike Selig wrote:
To sir Fred, as an umpire when I umpire young players I actually DO tend to warn bowlers if they get close to bowling no-balls (particularly back-foot no-balls where the youngster may not even be aware of the law), but that is my soft side showing (like Nasser, I would probably give someone not out cause "he looks like a nice lad").

This is an interesting one. I have been told by opposition umpires on numerous occasions that I'm 'getting close to cutting the return crease' or 'just cut the return crease but I'll let you off this time'. I know I have a problem with this and am well aware of the law, although I agree that a lot of youngsters wouldn't be, and although I had a vague idea of the law, I was very surprised the first time I was told about it.

I just wonder if they would give a warning in a tight match situation? My guess is they'd go straight to no-balling me, as the law dictates they should.

I've nearly been run out bu the bowler from backing up, basically i'd left the crease as I was batting with someone who was lower down the order and we were trying to get off strike. Basically as the bowler was running in I had literally just left the crease when the ball comes out of the bowlers hand by accident and hits the stump, I just ask the bowler 'are you actually appealing for that?' after the umpire said technically I was out, and as it was a freindly the bowler said no.

guildfordbat wrote:
I guess Gemma Dunning could pad away all day!

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:
I guess Gemma Dunning could pad away all day!

Oh dear, busted obviously...