Sri Lanka penalized for a short run! Was it totally necessary?

[MenInG]

From TMS

The umpires appear to have ruled that Sri Lanka deliberately ran one short and as a result England's first innings total has been given five penalty runs. It's now 290, not 285.


First penalty runs in WT20 now in this - is this the new trend?

 

[Extra_Cover]

This was totally uncalled for. I understand the penalty runs in WT20 as that was relating to running on wicket with the opposition yet to bat and importantly another match scheduled on the same wicket.

But today was kind of ridiculous from umpires. Sri Lanka was penalised for deliberately not completing a run and rightly a dead ball was signalled. But how can you penalise someone is beyond me. Considering this example it seems like umpires were able to take a judgement call on behalf of the batsman about deliberation and is completely uncalled for.

 

[Varun]

As lame as the "Demerit Points" in vogue over the last couple of years.

 

[MMHS]

They had to discriminate an Asian team, which is not IND (Indian posters need not to get excited here, my point is not to take a dig at IND or BCCI).

SRL will be batting 2nd here, therefore indeed there was a deliberate ploy by them to run on the wicket!!!! And, as I said many times them - in SAF, they didn’t penalise Aussies officially (no 5 runs penalty) for the sand paper act.

Hope SRL wins this Test.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

They had to discriminate an Asian team, which is not IND (Indian posters need not to get excited here, my point is not to take a dig at IND or BCCI).

SRL will be batting 2nd here, therefore indeed there was a deliberate ploy by them to run on the wicket!!!! And, as I said many times them - in SAF, they didn’t penalise Aussies officially (no 5 runs penalty) for the sand paper act.

Hope SRL wins this Test.

Reading the OP, the penalty wasn't awarded for running on to the danger area, but running a run short.

 

[the_outsider]

They had to discriminate an Asian team, which is not IND (Indian posters need not to get excited here, my point is not to take a dig at IND or BCCI).

SRL will be batting 2nd here, therefore indeed there was a deliberate ploy by them to run on the wicket!!!! And, as I said many times them - in SAF, they didn’t penalise Aussies officially (no 5 runs penalty) for the sand paper act.

Hope SRL wins this Test.

But SL wasn't penalized for running on the wicket.

They were penalized for deliberately running one run short to basically manipulate who takes strike the next ball/over.

I have seen fielding sides deliberately letting the ball go to the boundary on the last ball of an over so as to have a tailender face the next over.

But I don't ever recall the fielding side being penalized for that even though those two things are basically the same thing.

 

[MMHS]

Reading the OP, the penalty wasn't awarded for running on to the danger area, but running a run short.

I didn’t see anything, but is it possible that, they ran one short to keep main batsman on strike (on a possible 1.5 runs)? In that case, it’s even more hilarious- because that’s a tactics well within laws. If I can recall correctly, Javed ran one short on penultimate ball at Sharjah in that famous innings, so that he can be on strike on last ball & his partner (Wasim?), couldn’t make it to non striker’s end.

SRL should appeal on this and the umpires with match referee must explain their stand. 5 runs is nothing, but here Lankans are penalised for cheating or unfair play, which should be unacceptable for any team.

 

[MMHS]

But SL wasn't penalized for running on the wicket.

They were penalized for deliberately running one run short to basically manipulate who takes strike the next ball/over.

I have seen fielding sides deliberately letting the ball go to the boundary on the last ball of an over so as to have a tailender face the next over.

But I don't ever recall the fielding side being penalized for that even though those two things are basically the same thing.

That’s even more harsh then. I saw a game where laser batsman lobbed a catch to cover & both started jogging considering the dolly would be taken - fielder (can’t recall anything now, may be Border) noticed that the main batsman was half way through; he just dropped the ball & ran the main batsman out instead of the lesser man (probably NWM).

Next time what - penalise team for set batsman declining single to keep no. 10/11 out of strike?

 

[Joseph Gomes]

The rule itself is rubbish. Whether batsmen can deny singles/doubles is their own choice, umpire shouldn't butt in, it's not their job to control team plans.

 

[the_outsider]

That’s even more harsh then. I saw a game where laser batsman lobbed a catch to cover & both started jogging considering the dolly would be taken - fielder (can’t recall anything now, may be Border) noticed that the main batsman was half way through; he just dropped the ball & ran the main batsman out instead of the lesser man (probably NWM).

Next time what - penalise team for set batsman declining single to keep no. 10/11 out of strike?

Yes exactly. Umpires really shouldn't have gotten involved in this at all.

 

[Hasan123]

Yes it was harsh. I have seen batsmen run short before and the punishment wasn't this harsh.

 

[MenInG]

Sri Lanka were hit with five penalty runs by the on-field umpires during their first innings on Day 2 of the second Test against Englandin Pallekele.

The incident occurred during the third session of play on Thursday with the on-filed umpires deeming Roshen Silva for a deliberate short run. Silva cut the first delivery of the 86th over, bowled by Jack Leach, past Moeen Ali at short third man.

Moeen chased the ball even as it sped away. He slid and managed to keep the ball from crossing the boundary. However, the Sri Lanka pair of Silva and Akila Dananjaya simply sauntered to the opposite ends thinking they will get a boundary.

After watching Moeen saving the boundary, the duo decided to push for a double. However, Silva, while watching the ball, failed to ground his bat at the non-striker’s end before returning for the second run. The umpire deemed it as a deliberate short-run and consequently, the hosts were penalised.

Despite the minor setback, the pair did well to put their team in the lead before being separated. They added 56 runs for the ninth wicket as Sri Lanka eventually were bowled out for 336, taking 46-run lead. Silva was the last man to be dismissed after top-scoring with 85 off 174 deliveries.

The players returned to the field for one over which nightwatchman Jack Leach successfully negotiated with England ending the day on 0/0.

https://www.cricketcountry.com/news...were-docked-five-penalty-runs-on-day-2-765727

 

[imshally81]

Any video link ??

 

[Extra_Cover]

But SL wasn't penalized for running on the wicket.

They were penalized for deliberately running one run short to basically manipulate who takes strike the next ball/over.

I have seen fielding sides deliberately letting the ball go to the boundary on the last ball of an over so as to have a tailender face the next over.

But I don't ever recall the fielding side being penalized for that even though those two things are basically the same thing.

The bold part is where the issue lies. It is too judgemental a call to make and umpire cannot assume what the intention of the batsmen were, why can't this be a genuine mistake?

 

[HitWicket]

I didn’t see anything, but is it possible that, they ran one short to keep main batsman on strike (on a possible 1.5 runs)? In that case, it’s even more hilarious- because that’s a tactics well within laws. If I can recall correctly, Javed ran one short on penultimate ball at Sharjah in that famous innings, so that he can be on strike on last ball & his partner (Wasim?), couldn’t make it to non striker’s end.

SRL should appeal on this and the umpires with match referee must explain their stand. 5 runs is nothing, but here Lankans are penalised for cheating or unfair play, which should be unacceptable for any team.

It's literally got its own specific section of the laws :

18.5.1 If either umpire considers that one or both batsmen deliberately ran short at that umpire’s end, the umpire concerned shall, when the ball is dead, call and signal Short run and inform the other umpire of what has occurred and apply 18.5.2.

18.5.2 The bowler’s end umpire shall

- disallow all runs to the batting side
- return any not out batsman to his/her original end
- signal No ball or Wide to the scorers, if applicable
- award 5 Penalty runs to the fielding side
- award any other 5-run Penalty that is applicable except for Penalty runs under Law 28.3 (Protective helmets belonging to the fielding side)
- inform the scorers as to the number of runs to be recorde
- inform the captain of the fielding side and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of the reason for this action.

 

[MMHS]

It's literally got its own specific section of the laws :

18.5.1 If either umpire considers that one or both batsmen deliberately ran short at that umpire’s end, the umpire concerned shall, when the ball is dead, call and signal Short run and inform the other umpire of what has occurred and apply 18.5.2.

18.5.2 The bowler’s end umpire shall

- disallow all runs to the batting side
- return any not out batsman to his/her original end
- signal No ball or Wide to the scorers, if applicable
- award 5 Penalty runs to the fielding side
- award any other 5-run Penalty that is applicable except for Penalty runs under Law 28.3 (Protective helmets belonging to the fielding side)
- inform the scorers as to the number of runs to be recorde
- inform the captain of the fielding side and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of the reason for this action.

I see, I wasn’t aware of such details. Howver, still it’s subjective & law is applied in case to case basis. Moreover from the elaboration given MenIng, I don’t think umpires can penalize a team on that ground.

 

[cricketindiafan]

Remember Pollard doing this in 2017 IPL. Thefe were no penalty runs awarded even though it was clearly deliberate to retain strike and his team lost

 

[happydavy]

Simple thing should be to award 0 run but why would you deduct anything more? If tomorrow someone while running realises that he won't be able to complete the second run and turns back midpitch, then would that also be penalised? Everyone should have the right to save his wicket without getting penalised.

 

[delpiero10]

So many people blindly jump to the defence of batsmen even when the batsman is clearly wrong.

If not for deliberately running one short, the sheer stupidity of not even bothering to touch the bat in at the non strikers end when he thought it was going for four deserves some kind of punishment. The batsman was one foot away from the crease, was it really such a job to touch his bat in?

I think 90% of people here are the types that play with rules such as “can’t be out first ball” etc, such is their bias towards batsmen.

Mankading should not be controversial.
Azhar Ali deserved to be run out against Australia.
Ian Bell in 2011 vs India should have remained run out.

The game is so much in favour of batsmen already. Their stupidity or oversights in situations such as this deserve to result in their wicket, or penalty runs, in today’s case.

 

[cricketindiafan]

Simple thing should be to award 0 run but why would you deduct anything more? If tomorrow someone while running realises that he won't be able to complete the second run and turns back midpitch, then would that also be penalised? Everyone should have the right to save his wicket without getting penalised.

Thats in some way a form of cheating and 5 penalty runs is too small a penalty IMO.

There is a law and field umpires have the discretion to decide if it was done deliberately. Players are aware and know the risks when attempting this. I am absolutely okay with the umpire awarding penalty runs. Can't indulge in whataboutery to defend.

 

[James]

They had to discriminate an Asian team, which is not IND (Indian posters need not to get excited here, my point is not to take a dig at IND or BCCI).

SRL will be batting 2nd here, therefore indeed there was a deliberate ploy by them to run on the wicket!!!! And, as I said many times them - in SAF, they didn’t penalise Aussies officially (no 5 runs penalty) for the sand paper act.

Hope SRL wins this Test.

LOL, race card pulled on the 3rd reply to the thread.

Didn’t take long.

 

[the_outsider]

Thats in some way a form of cheating and 5 penalty runs is too small a penalty IMO.

There is a law and field umpires have the discretion to decide if it was done deliberately. Players are aware and know the risks when attempting this. I am absolutely okay with the umpire awarding penalty runs. Can't indulge in whataboutery to defend.

Then the batting team should also be awarded 5 penalty runs when the fielding team deliberately let's the ball go to the boundary.

But there is no such rule. And that's the issue here. That the rules aren't the same for both sides.

 

[cricketindiafan]

There is now a 'fake fielding law' in place to award 5 penalty runs. No discrimination at all.

 

[the_outsider]

There is now a 'fake fielding law' in place to award 5 penalty runs. No discrimination at all.

From my understanding of that rule, it is not going to cover the scenario that I spoke about.

The rule you are talking about mostly deals with fake throws. It doesn't say anything about letting the ball deliberately go to the boundary.

 

[hadi123]

Imagine if SL lose by a margin of 5 or less runs!

 

[happydavy]

Thats in some way a form of cheating and 5 penalty runs is too small a penalty IMO.

There is a law and field umpires have the discretion to decide if it was done deliberately. Players are aware and know the risks when attempting this. I am absolutely okay with the umpire awarding penalty runs. Can't indulge in whataboutery to defend.

What exactly is cheating? That someone miscalculated the time needed to complete 2 runs and he decided to return to his crease without taking even a single run. How is that cheating? Everytime I step out of crease, I have to complete the run else I will be penalised?

 

[Canford Cliffs]

LOL, race card pulled on the 3rd reply to the thread.

Didn’t take long.

For few of us Subcontinent people, everything wrong that is happening is bcoz of our race. We claim racism just to hide our own faults as an escape route.

Cricket perhaphs has to be the most non rascist game but few people like to cry racism. Chuckers banned - racism, teams dont get invited bcoz they are not marketable enough - racism.

SL has a history of cheating, remember how Sanga asked Randiv to deliberately bowl the no ball to not allow Sehwag score a century? I have no doubt this short run was a blatant cheating as well. Good on umpires to give 5 runs to Eng.

 

[MMHS]

LOL, race card pulled on the 3rd reply to the thread.

Didn’t take long.

But the point remains fact - AUS wasn't charged 5 runs for ball tempering.

 

[Last Monetarist]

I saw the incident and was utterly miffed at the 5 runs penalty. It seemed that the batsmen had just taken it for granted that the ball would trickle to the boundary, but when it didn't they forgot to complete the run. Nothing sinister in that in my view, and the penalty left a sour taste in the mouth. At least, I think the umpires took a liberty in interpreting the law, at worst, it was an egregious error.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

But the point remains fact - AUS wasn't charged 5 runs for ball tempering.

How does that prove there is racism? That screams victim complex you know. Australia is a rich board so it can be elitism, but blaming it on racism is very shallow.

 

[MMHS]

How does that prove there is racism? That screams victim complex you know. Australia is a rich board so it can be elitism, but blaming it on racism is very shallow.

Racism is a word imposed on my post - I didn't hint it. Otherwise, instead of Asian teams, I would have written non white teams.

 

[James]

Racism is a word imposed on my post - I didn't hint it. Otherwise, instead of Asian teams, I would have written non white teams.

Back-pedalling fast now aren’t we.

 

[MMHS]

Back-pedalling fast now aren’t we.

NO. I have written enough on cricket here, including SAF & their racial quota - but never on discrimination by color.

Few months back, BCB was fined for ground condition, then CTG venue was fined for "too much batting friendly" wicket - within a year of that AUS-NZ Test at WACA & IND-AUS Test at Nagpur. In recent times, SRL has been going through several fines and bans starting from WIN tour, and PAK was accused of ball tempering as early as 2006 without any evidence, then we have the sand paper gate.

These days, BCCI has the financial muscle, therefore the "elite" boards don't touch them, otherwise 18 years back, 6 Indian players were fined for "excessive appeal".

If I had to go race route, there are many more ways to forward paddle - just didn't want to bring controversy here.

 

[Malik786]

Video???

 

[KingKhanWC]

Correct decision.

The Lankan batsmen deliberatly did not make the run as he thought it was going for 4. When he realised he should have put his bat in before running the second. Sure there was no bad intent but rules are rules.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Correct decision.

The Lankan batsmen deliberatly did not make the run as he thought it was going for 4. When he realised he should have put his bat in before running the second. Sure there was no bad intent but rules are rules.

The rule states that the umpires can award a 5 run penalty if in their view the batsmen deliberately ran one short, with the common interpretation being in order to ensure that the recognized (in form) batsman retains the strike, thus implying bad intent. In this case there was none, as forgetting to put the bat down in the crease when you think the ball is going for 4 is not deliberate. At least, it's hard to prove given that at no stage of the innings were the batsmen rejecting singles to manipulate the strike.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The rule states that the umpires can award a 5 run penalty if in their view the batsmen deliberately ran one short, with the common interpretation being in order to ensure that the recognized (in form) batsman retains the strike, thus implying bad intent. In this case there was none, as forgetting to put the bat down in the crease when you think the ball is going for 4 is not deliberate. At least, it's hard to prove given that at no stage of the innings were the batsmen rejecting singles to manipulate the strike.

He didn't forget, he purposely didn't put his bat down because he thought it was a four. He was a fair distance away from the crease, so there can be no quetion of forgetfullness.

 

[Last Monetarist]

He didn't forget, he purposely didn't put his bat down because he thought it was a four. He was a fair distance away from the crease, so there can be no quetion of forgetfullness.

There was no pressure on the runners to complete the second run as Moeen had slid across the boundary while trying to retrieve the ball, Silva could easily have gone back to put the bat down in the crease and still have ample time to run the second. This suggested an oversight rather than deliberate manipulation of the strike.

 

[KingKhanWC]

There was no pressure on the runners to complete the second run as Moeen had slid across the boundary while trying to retrieve the ball, Silva could easily have gone back to put the bat down in the crease and still have ample time to run the second. This suggested an oversight rather than deliberate manipulation of the strike.

He should have done it then instead of trying to take the second run. I interpret it as the umpires did, so have no issues with the ruling. If you have a different opinion, fair enough.