Balancing the Thin Line

Cricket is, inarguably, a very descriptive sport. Comprehending all the rules, and nuances therein, can be an arduous task. While the number of regulations is itself a long list, interpreting them is often tricky, especially on instances when diverging opinions can be derived from a single event. Among the multiple ways of dismissing a batter, the most contentious is probably that of running out the non-striker by the bowler in his run-up before completing the delivery. It has commanded extraordinary attention over the last few years and serves a fitting example for conflicting perceptions. With ever increasing focus, is it time to revisit the scope of the dismissal, and look at options which can discourage batters, in general, from crossing the line?

Spirit of cricket is usually invoked whenever a batter is run out at the non-striker end before a delivery is bowled. Cricket is a contest between a bat and ball; such a run-out invariably nullifies the essence and is notionally unfair. The sport has long and proudly retained its tag of being the ‘gentleman’s game’ and every element of its constitution echoes the same. In this regard, an error of crossing the line by a non-playing batter to cost their wicket, appears to be a moral offence on the part of the bowler. Although the rulebook validates the dismissal, it mentions the bowler issuing a warning to the batter before executing, which reiterates the principled framework of the sport. Cricket is seen as a tough physical sport and certain rules offering disproportionate benefit, such as a runner for an injured batter, have been revised over the years. On this backdrop, dismissing a batter in this manner appears, even more, to be grossly inappropriate. However, the argument is equally strong, if not stronger, on the other side for retention of the law!

Imagine (or rather remember the last time you saw it) the last delivery of a close T20 match with 2 runs needed to win for the batting team. With a start, the non-striker has already covered a couple of yards and has momentum before the ball reaches the batter. If he ends up running to the danger end, there is a massive unaccounted advantage that can be the difference between a tie or a result! TV cameras have caught and relayed several instances of the non-striker setting off even before the bowler is through with his delivery. The popping crease should ideally belong to both the batter and bowler and neither is permitted to cross. However, in the current premise of the rules the onus is on the bowler to keep an eye on the non-striker, warn if they commits a mistake, and turn into the villain if they end up running out the guilty batter! Modern day cricket has skewed towards a contest between bats, rather than bat and ball. The current definitions and perceptions around this form of run-out appear archaic, and in effect add to that imbalance.

The laws of the game continue to legitimise this mode of getting a batter out. The stigma or ambivalent interpretation around Mankading needs to stop. Cricket’s law-makers and technical committees of the governing bodies need to either make the rule simpler by taking out the ‘warning’ bit or abolishing the dismissal altogether by offering the bowlers a real deal. While the former does not require reforms, but mere acceptance, here are a couple of alternatives that could be thought of if the latter option sounds like the golden middle path.

1. Free Hit is the big punishment a bowler faces (in limited overs formats) every time he steps over the bowling crease. Nowadays, these calls are largely error-free and unmistakably noticed each time, with the TV umpire monitoring bowler’s delivery stride. Is it time for the TV umpire to start tracking the non-striker batter’s position as well? This would neither require any extra infrastructure, nor would it need an additional person to do these checks. The fine to the guilty batter - something like a ‘Free Delivery’. This could be a dot ball which the bowler is not required to bowl altogether. In limited overs formats a delivery less is quite significant and seemingly a strong enough sanction.
   
2. In normal discourse, if a batter does not cross the crease while completing runs, the umpire calls it a ‘short run’ and one run is deducted from the batting team’s total. With this potential in-camera tracking, can we have the TV umpire call out a short run every time the non-striker is out of the bowling crease? This could also cover boundaries (fours and sixes) and make it 3s and 5s if the non-striker has crossed the line early. In limited-overs cricket, T20 format in particular, every run is a premium and even one less is a costly and fair penalty.

Modern day cricket emphasizes on running hard between wickets, and shorter formats have necessitated capitalising on every run. This trend of the non-striker setting off early is only likely to increase, if left unnoticed. The onus of keeping a tab on the non-striker should not be left to a bowler’s vigilance or smartness but should be accounted for as strictly as a front foot no-ball. In fact, a fielding team is penalised even if a fielder has breached the restricted area when a bowler is in his delivery. In today’s era of multiple cameras even for domestic matches, the idea of in-camera tracking and consequent penalty for every instance is not far-fetched. Rather it can truly facilitate the justifiable transition towards doing away completely with a highly controversial mode of dismissing the batter. Rules in this sport have often tread the thin line, and now is a good time for course-correction to make the bowling crease equitable.