Message Board Archives

HEADLINE: Can spirit of the game be at variance with laws of the game?

 
CaribbeanCricket.com 2019-03-26 07:25:19 

Tempers are frayed, allegations are made, motives are assigned, voices are shouted down and everyone is in a tizzy. You would think someone had been assaulted, swindled or waylaid. And, in a manner of speaking, you wouldn't be wrong because we are talking about the spirit of our game, that wonderfully fuzzy, subjective thing that everyone defines differently.

So, should Ashwin have run Buttler out? Should Buttler have been more vigilant? Was Ashwin devious and Buttler robbed? Was Ashwin clever and Buttler defeated? Did Ashwin violate the spirit of the game? Ah, the spirit of the game! It is something so dear to cricket lovers that there is actually a preamble to the laws of cricket that specifically addresses this. It talks about respect, towards teammates and opponents and the umpires; it talks about playing hard and fair and accepting the umpire's decision, about creating a positive atmosphere through each player's conduct. And more on those lines.

But can the spirit of the game be at variance with the laws of the game? Since both are drafted by the same entity, you would assume that playing within the laws of the game would assume you are playing in the spirit of the game. So when Ashwin ran Buttler out, was he within the laws of the game? And within its spirit?

read more at cricbuzz


Full Story

 
Khaga 2019-03-26 07:47:10 

Good piece,Harsha! hardhitting..

 
InHindsight 2019-03-26 07:47:28 

The two indeed are at variance if you ask me. In the IPL game yesterday March 25th between KXIP and RR Ashwin KXIP captain's runnout of Bulter I think was not in the spirit of the game.

So there are instances when a bowler justiably can Mankad the non striker without the inkling of a warning. In other instances he may need to give a warning. Butler yesterday was not trying to 'steal' a run but rather was carelessly drifting out of his crease. Aswhin in that instance waited for Butler to do drift then he dislodged the bails against the run of play. It looked so ungamely

My take

 
Khaga 2019-03-26 07:49:37 

In reply to InHindsight


Butler yesterday was not trying to 'steal' a run but rather was carelessly was drifting out of his crease.


Butler has been Mankaded before..why wouldn't he learn to stay his rass in the crease? If he is careless, he deserves..

 
InHindsight 2019-03-26 07:56:06 

In reply to Khaga

That is an interesting point. If he had done so recently and notoriously then it would have been quite okay

 
camos 2019-03-26 08:23:49 

anti Mankad arguments are used mainly to preserve "white privilege".

 
Tryangle 2019-03-26 08:59:03 

If all batsmen stayed in their crease Mankading wouldn't be a thing, full stop.

I say to all bowlers, it's open season. Let it be known you're going to try and get wickets by any means necessary. This whole controversy would be shut down before the end of the year.

 
tops 2019-03-26 09:04:11 

In reply to Tryangle
Agree. A bowler's job is to get wickets...A batsman's job is to get runs...An umpire's job is make decisions...The players' job is to respect the umpires' decisions... Story done...

 
SnoopDog 2019-03-26 09:23:37 

In reply to InHindsight

Butler yesterday was not trying to 'steal' a run but rather was carelessly drifting out of his crease


So when a batsman carelessly wanders out of his crease and get's stumped out do we accuse the keeper of cheating and not playing within the spirit of the game?

The laws of the game says what Ashwin did was legitimate. Just like when a batsmen gets stump. Butler is the one who was trying to cheat and get an unfair advantage. Glad he got exactly what he deserved.

I notice it's only White players with their holier than thou mentality are up in arms about this.

 
Larr Pullo 2019-03-26 10:36:14 

Who gives a F$%K it was probably all done in pursuit of match fixing anyway!!! evil evil evil

 
sgtdjones 2019-03-26 10:38:36 

In reply to Larr Pullo

I spilled my Orange juice

razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz

 
camos 2019-03-26 11:12:36 

In reply to Larr Pullo

Who gives a F$%K

the white players, the same one who did not mind winning when WI leave the field thinking they had won!

 
Tryangle 2019-03-26 11:19:43 

In reply to Larr Pullo

I'd bet (pun intended) that half the people up in arms had put down good money on Buttler reaching 75 or some other target lol

 
InHindsight 2019-03-26 11:24:28 

In reply to SnoopDog



So when a batsman carelessly wanders out of his crease and get's stumped out do we accuse the keeper of cheating and not playing within the spirit of the game?



According to you what Ashwin did was legitimate. Then why the debate?

The article's title is about the variance between the spirit of the game and the law. That's the debate.

Is there any contention when a batsman is stumped?

And you know Butler was cheating????

 
SnoopDog 2019-03-26 11:25:05 

In reply to Tryangle

I'd bet (pun intended) that half the people up in arms had put down good money on Buttler reaching 75 or some other target


lol lol lol

So Ashwin not only Mankaded Butler, he also Mankaded half of Mindia? lol

 
solidrock 2019-03-26 11:28:17 

I do not understand the argument. A rule in cricket as to how a batsman can be given out. Batsman infringes on the rule and gets out. He or she is out, it is out. Full stop. If it is a bad rule for cricket, then change the law.

 
Chrissy 2019-03-26 12:05:17 

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

I've been saying that for ages. If it is a law, di spirit is irrelevant.

 
Chrissy 2019-03-26 12:06:36 

In reply to camos

anti Mankad arguments are used mainly to preserve "white privilege".

Precisely

 
SnoopDog 2019-03-26 12:35:14 

In reply to InHindsight

According to you what Ashwin did was legitimate. Then why the debate?


Of course it was legitimate. It was within the rules of the game and the umpires confirmed that. That there is a debate is irrelevant to that one singular point.

Is there any contention when a batsman is stumped?


No there isn't, and that is why this whole "debate" is an absurdity. In both situations, the batsmen are ruled out if they wander out from their crease and the bails are broken.

And you know Butler was cheating????


Why else would he be out of his crease? He was trying to gain an unfair advantage by backing up before the ball was delivered essentially making the pitch into 20 yards instead of 22 yards. He was cheating.

 
InHindsight 2019-03-26 13:00:25 

In reply to SnoopDog

Snoopie the issue is not about legitimacy but about variance in the "spirit" and the "law".

Chrissy said this above:


I've been saying that for ages. If it is a law, di spirit is irrelevant.


I have no issue with that. So should the "spirit" be done away with on that matter? That for me is the real question. But as long as the status quo remains the issue cannot glibly cast aside as you do. And therefore Ashwin did not act in the spirit of the game. My take.

On the matter of stumping, these are two separate issues

Regards cheating, you are downright bold on the matter big grin

 
SnoopDog 2019-03-26 13:06:40 

In reply to InHindsight

Snoopie the issue is not about legitimacy but about variance in the "spirit" and the "law".


I get that too. But the Mankad is enshrined into the laws of the game as a legitimate method of dismissal. Nowhere is it written (not in the preamble nor the laws or anywhere else) that to effect a Mankad is against the spirit of the game.

It was also within the spirit of the game for umpires to afford the batsmen the benefit of the doubt. That has now been completely done away with with DRS. Where's the debate about that erosion about the spirit of the game?

I see zero merits for any debate on this subject matter. It's black and white. Just like the rules.

 
SnoopDog 2019-03-26 13:07:42 

In reply to InHindsight

On the matter of stumping, these are two separate issues


No they aren't. In both situations the batsmen have wandered out of their crease and the bails are broken to effect a dismissal.

 
tops 2019-03-26 13:17:32 

In reply to SnoopDog
Another Xample...Batsman str8 drives the ball. Bowler tries to remove his hand but ball still hit the tip of his finger and clatter into the nonstriker wicket...Nonstriker was trying to get back but fail by 1 mm.
Is it against the spirit of the game for the bowler to appeal... big grin

 
InHindsight 2019-03-26 13:18:04 

In reply to SnoopDog



No they aren't.



This in't the case just because I say so. No debate (spirit of the law) if a batsman is stumped

 
SnoopDog 2019-03-26 13:20:33 

In reply to tops

Another Xample...Batsman str8 drives the ball. Bowler tries to remove his hand but ball still hit the tip of his finger and clatter into the nonstriker wicket...Nonstriker was trying to get back but fail by 1 mm.
Is it against the spirit of the game for the bowler to appeal.


Great example! That situation you described is far more morally defensible for the "spirit of the game" crowd than the Mankad.

 
SnoopDog 2019-03-26 13:22:42 

In reply to InHindsight

This in't the case because I so.No debate (spirit of the law) if a batsman is stumped


But that's the point. It should be given that both situations are identical.

But the absurdity is that this mythical "spirit of the game" applies only to the Mankad.

And it isn't the case because I said so. I explained quite clearly why I said so.

 
Narper 2019-03-26 13:44:43 

In reply to Chrissy

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

I've been saying that for ages. If it is a law, di spirit is irrelevant.


What about 'walking'? wink

 
Cameron 2019-03-26 13:47:35 

The spirit of the game cannot be at variance withthe laws of the game. It is the laws that define the game. So what game are they playing in the spirit of, if not the games whose laws say you should stay in your crease until the ball is released? Further, if arriving at the crease a microsecond late can cause you to be runout, why would leaving your crease too early not also cause you to be out? What makes the bowling crease less sacrosanct than the batting crease? Does the wicket keeper warn the batsman before he can stump him out? Why should the bowler?

THe spirit of the game should involve doing things outside the laws of the game to gain an advantage. How about the insults that fly on the field?

 
SnoopDog 2019-03-26 13:50:48 

In reply to Narper

I would love for somebody to post a link to where all this spirit of game stuff is written for all cricketers to read, understand, and abide by. Also, who wrote them and when?

After all, how do I know whether I've run afoul of the spirit of the game if I don't know precisely what the spirit of the game is and as it is written?

 
Lenks 2019-03-26 14:00:58 

In reply to SnoopDog

I would love for somebody to post a link to where all this spirit of game stuff is written for all cricketers to read, understand, and abide by. Also, who wrote them and when?


As you stated...mythical. Fairy tale.

 
Lenks 2019-03-26 14:14:09 

Read and tell me reason for Butler to be so angry yesterday.

After controversially being Mankaded two years ago, England's limited-overs wicketkeeper now says they are "part of the game"


As England return to Edgbaston to face Sri Lanka, the venue and opposition for Jos Buttler’s Mankad contentious mankad dismissal two years ago, the wicketkeeper has admitted fault for his part in the incident.


And while Buttler also expressed his displeasure with Sri Lanka’s tactics at the time, the 25-year-old now concedes he was in the wrong.


“It is obviously batsman error,” Buttler said. “If you walk out of your ground and someone wants to do it, it is in the laws of the game. It is all part of the game.

“I was disappointed at the time, because it doesn't happen very often. I thought you could do that every ball if you wanted and there would be a chance to run someone out.

“But the bowler would say why don't you just stay in your crease? So I guess I did learn something from it.”


Unnu can gwaan cry with Stokes and other Pommies...and Aussies

Stay put or Mankad.

 
SnoopDog 2019-03-26 14:18:21 

In reply to Lenks

I thought you could do that every ball if you wanted and there would be a chance to run someone out.


And that there is the crux of the matter.

Here was a batsman who thought he could literally walk halfway down the pitch while the bowler was about to deliver the ball because the "spirit of the game" protected him from a dismissal.

It is the batsman's conduct which is against the spirit of the game, not the bowler affecting a lawful, legitimate and legal dismissal.

 
FuzzyWuzzy 2019-03-26 16:46:28 

In reply to SnoopDog

Even more to the point. Sometimes a keeper gathers the ball and wait by the stumps until the batsman loses his balance and then take off the bails. Nobody complains. The batsman was not attempting a run...he just lost his balance

 
Baje 2019-03-26 18:24:30 

Within the spirit of the game it is ok for batsmen to edge the ball to the keeper and stand there pretending that they did not hit it

 
Lenks 2019-03-27 02:17:47 

In reply to SnoopDog

It is the batsman's conduct which is against the spirit of the game, not the bowler affecting a lawful, legitimate and legal dismissal.


Indeed sir!

 
InHindsight 2019-03-27 03:55:04 

In reply to Narper


What about 'walking'? wink


Had that discussion with my young son

Is a batsman dishonest or a cheat if he doesn't walk?

Of course I told him not as long as his actions are consistent.

I explained that even if you say, edge the ball to the keeper and don't walk doesn't mean you are a cheat. As long as it's your principle that the umps must give you out. But don't vasilate on the matter.

wink

 
Tryangle 2019-03-28 10:26:46 

Missed opportunity for Russell the other day