[VIDEO/PICTURE] Mankad wins a game of cricket - But is that really cricket?

[MenInG]

M Wasim Jr at the last ball vs Zimbabwe.

 

[par]

The reaction from Indian fans when one of their own players gets run out in this way is going to be fascinating.

I, for one, won't complain.

 

[chuck]

Thanks MIG, Wasim was clearly trying to take an unfair advantage here.

 

[Birdman]

That's cheating. Nowadays we have third umpire watching front foot NB so he can also watch for runner leaving early. The rule should be changed to one run docked if the runner leaves early.

 

[MP2011]

That's cheating. Nowadays we have third umpire watching front foot NB so he can also watch for runner leaving early. The rule should be changed to one run docked if the runner leaves early.

Good idea though I don't think it'll ever be implemented.

 

[jnaveen1980]

The reaction from Indian fans when one of their own players gets run out in this way is going to be fascinating.

Kohli held his ground even with 2 to get in 1 ball. He did not leave the crease. High time penalizing the violators who leave the crease out of desperation before the ball is released instead of talking about imaginary scenarios. I would gladly accept an Indian being run out this way. These are basics. If you violate you deserve to be punished.

 

[jnaveen1980]

That's cheating. Nowadays we have third umpire watching front foot NB so he can also watch for runner leaving early. The rule should be changed to one run docked if the runner leaves early.

He cannot watch both batsmen and bowler. Bowler has to watch

 

[fitCricFan]

Its ironic that despite this obvious cheating, Wasim/Afridi could not complete the 2nd run and Pakistan lost. This is exactly why the rule is in place and it is absolutely right to get the runner out without the need to warn or any heads-up for that matter. If the non-striker is doing this then he/she has to be prepared for the consequences. Claiming ignorance of a rule is not a defense.

Hoping to see more non-strikers struck out this way until they this malady is cured and non-strikers stop doing it.

 

[dildilpak]

M Wasim Jr at the last ball vs Zimbabwe.

This is nothing but cheating & I would have been ok if Wasim was Mankaded here. If bowlers can be punished severely for stepping out even an inch, why not the batsmen? High time such nonsense is not put up with anymore.

 

[jnaveen1980]

This is nothing but cheating & I would have been ok if Wasim was Mankaded here. If bowlers can be punished severely for stepping out even an inch, why not the batsmen? High time such nonsense is not put up with anymore.

In order to protect Josh Buttler the serial offender whole English media, players, former players (with few exceptions) started bullying anyone who mankaded. The deep dive analysis clearly illustrated Buttler repeatedly wandered outside the crease the striker is a lesser batsman. When the striker is a good Buttler did not wander outside as much. So it is not a mistake. It was pre-meditated

 

[MP2011]

M Wasim Jr at the last ball vs Zimbabwe.

So is this spirit of cricket? Crime is what a bowler does if he runs the non striker out in such cases?

 

[WengerOut]

This is wrong but would not have made any difference here since the throw went to strikers end. If it was anyone other than SSA, he would have made the ground after the stumble from the WK.

 

[dildilpak]

This is wrong but would not have made any difference here since the throw went to strikers end. If it was anyone other than SSA, he would have made the ground after the stumble from the WK.

And what if SSA had made the ground- this would have gone unpunished and Pakistan could have won the game from there, right? If Mankading is not in spirit of cricket, what will you call this?

 

[Birdman]

This is wrong but would not have made any difference here since the throw went to strikers end. If it was anyone other than SSA, he would have made the ground after the stumble from the WK.

It almost made a difference, that's why the fielder had to throw the ball to the keeper. The runner who was backing up made it.

 

[WengerOut]

And what if SSA had made the ground- this would have gone unpunished and Pakistan could have won the game from there, right? If Mankading is not in spirit of cricket, what will you call this?

I have already agreed this is wrong.

 

[MenInG]

During Glen Phillips' innings, one incident is being appreciated by fans on social media and it is regarding how the batter was backing up in the final over. The batter did not venture out of his crease when the ball was about to be delivered by the bowler, rather he took the guard like a sprinter.

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 61.111%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/lpnmu3" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

 

[MenInG]

So is this spirit of cricket? Crime is what a bowler does if he runs the non striker out in such cases?

My question is whether this was a backfoot no ball that wasn't checked.

 

[kumjsr]

Run out rule should be changed to penalise batting side every time non-striker leaves leaves crease

Recently mankading or run out rule was changed and onus is on bowlers to run out non-striker if they leave crease early.

However is it possible all the time. Most of the pacers won't be able to do it in one off scenario where unfair early start by non striker can give crucial advantage to batting side in close match.

Case in point - during Pakistan v Zimbabwe match, Md Wasim Jr tried to cheat by leaving crease way before ball was delivered on the last ball.

Although no rules were broken, but it is unfair advantage to batsmen.

Rule should be changed to declare it short run. That way it will act as deterrent for the batsman.

Today Glenn Phillips was watching bowler carefully and took sprinter's position to run faster rather in leave crease early during NZ v SL match.

 

[kumjsr]

My question is whether this was a backfoot no ball that wasn't checked.

Can you post a picture of when bowler bowled it?

It looked well inside the crease and going out afterwards.

 

[jnaveen1980]

During Glen Phillips' innings, one incident is being appreciated by fans on social media and it is regarding how the batter was backing up in the final over. The batter did not venture out of his crease when the ball was about to be delivered by the bowler, rather he took the guard like a sprinter.

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 61.111%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/lpnmu3" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

wow. actually I pictured some batsman trying to run like this.Pleasant surprise to see someone actually doing it. Sprinter position.

 

[ex-q-zit]

https://sports.ndtv.com/t20-world-c...n-striker-out-3473389#pfrom=home-ndtv_cricket

"It's my responsibility to make sure that I'm in the crease and leave at the right time," said New Zealand batter Glenn Phillips, adding that the bowlers are well within their rights to take off the bails if the non-striker is backing up. During New Zealand's T20 World Cup match against Sri Lanka, towards the end of his innings Phillips was seen squatting in a sprinter's stance at the non-striker's end and the moment Lahiru Kumara released the delivery, he rushed towards the striker's end.

"From a sprinter's start when you're trying not to be out of the crease as much as possible -- there's been a lot going around about Mankads and leaving the crease," Phillips said at the post-match press conference after New Zealand's win over Sri Lanka.

"At the end of the day, it's my responsibility to make sure that I'm in the crease and leave at the right time. If the bowler is doing his job, then he has the right to be able to take the bails off.

"For me to be able to get into that start, that position as quick as possible, it just made sense," he added.

Phillips starred with the bat as he struck a sparkling 64-ball 104 in New Zealand's thumping 65-run victory over Sri Lanka.

"It was very much spur of the moment. I guess the position was to be able to see the bowlers and take off as quick as possible," he added.

Mankading, informally named after former India cricketer Vinoo Mankad, has been in the news of late after Deepti Sharma ran out Charlie Dean at the non-striker's end for leaving her crease too early to hand a 3-0 ODI series sweep in England last month.

Once considered unfair play, although legal, in the gentleman's game, the ICC has now termed these kind of dismissals as 'run out'. Since October 1, it no longer sits in the 'unfair play' section of its rule book.

However, the debate continues if such dismissals are against the 'spirit of game'.

NDTV

 

[MenInG]

Ravichandran Ashwin attempted to 'Mankad' David Miller

 

[charlie007]

He should have instead of just giving a stare

 

[Smbhayi]

He should have instead of just giving a stare

He can't.. bcz if he tried Miller can easily touch the crease .

 

[IMMY69]

Backing up to far is not cheating, just like bowling a no ball is not cheating.

 

[Birdman]

Backing up to far is not cheating, just like bowling a no ball is not cheating.

But bowling a no-ball is penalized. Backing up is not cheating as long as "spirit of the game" is involved. It's abuse of the "spirit of cricket"

 

[MenInG]

Ever since India all-rounder Deepti Sharma ran-out England's Charlie Dean at the non-striker's end in an ODI played at the Lords Cricket Ground, this mode of dismissal has been widely debated with some having the opinion that this is not in keeping with the spirit of cricket. It is important to mention that running the non-striker out when they venture too far ahead of the crease even when the bowler has not delivered the ball is perfectly legal and it was recently moved from the 'unfair play' section to the run-out category by the ICC.

Ahead of India's T20 World Cup Super 12 match against Zimbabwe, Ravichandran Ashwin addressed a press conference where he spoke about the team's preparations and the challenge that lies ahead. With Ashwin speaking to the media, it is almost obvious that a question will be asked on running the non-striker out if he/she ventures too far ahead when the bowler has not even delivered the ball.

Replying to the question regarding running non-striker out if he/she is too far ahead when the ball has not been even delivered, Ashwin said: "Honestly, I would also not like to get out like that. Just because I don't like doesn't mean I cannot get out like that. Nobody likes getting out, I do not like being knicked off, bowled, LBW, run-out. Likewise, I would also not like to get run-out at the non-striker's end."

"It is a form of a dismissal and it is legal. There are many arguments regarding that. Like with anything else in this world, people are going to have contradictory thoughts. Whether you want to do it or not, it is absolutely fine. It is good to know that some people won't do it, because you can run at the last minute and wait. It is good, people are going to come and say they won't do it, as a cricketer, I'll use that to my advantage.

Further talking about the journey so far in the World Cup, Ashwin said: "We have not reached here easily (laughs). We have had quite tricky games against Bangladesh and Pakistan. These games went down to the wire. I think even people watching the game, giving their expert opinion on the game are still learning because the game is decided by such small margins."

"The experts themselves feel they are catching up with the game seeing how it has evolved. So, it would be unfair to say that the team has not stepped up or the team is not looking at its best. It is about how one performs on the day and how are you going to counter a bowler who has bowled a good over. You cannot nail it down and say a team has not played good cricket or wonderful cricket. T20 cricket is standing on small margins so to make any reviews, I would just say that make a review after the game," he added.

NDTV

 

[MenInG]

Kane Williamson:

"It is not something we are looking to do. It has been spoken a lot. Personally, I do not think it is a very attractive part of the game. You know, you compete, you do all you can and you want to make sure that people are not looking to get an advantage by leaving the crease a long way early. But I do not think it is a great part of the game. Most people turn up to see the competition between the bat and ball, not seeing a ball not being bowled"

In the T20 World Cup, one saw Glenn Phillips sort of taking a sprinter like stance at the non-striker's end and speaking about that, Williamson said: "We certainly did not speak about that. It was all Glenn. You know, he is pretty quick and he thought maybe starting like a sprinter will probably add more. He could have maybe stood outside his crease and put his bat in, and get a head start. There are few different theories out there," he added.

"Glenn is an incredibly special player and he had an incredible World Cup, where he played incredible knocks for us. We know how special he is as an athlete. He is such a valuable player and he brings that X-factor to our team," he added.

NDTV

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cmu8TTeploj/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); widthlc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cmu8TTeploj/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decorationne; width:100%;" target="_blank"> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div><div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-stylermal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"><div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div></div><div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div></div></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div></div></a><p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-spacewrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cmu8TTeploj/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-stylermal; font-weightrmal; line-height:17px; text-decorationne;" target="_blank">A post shared by cricket.com.au (@cricketcomau)</a></p></div></blockquote> <script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Spicy, spicy scenes at the MCG. <br><br>Not out is the call...debate away, friends! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BBL12?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BBL12</a> <a href="https://t.co/N6FAjNwDO7">pic.twitter.com/N6FAjNwDO7</a></p>— KFC Big Bash League (@BBL) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBL/status/1610212170914238464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[HitWicket]

I don't like it but it should have been out, umpires don't know the laws.

 

[MP2011]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Spicy, spicy scenes at the MCG. <br><br>Not out is the call...debate away, friends! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BBL12?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BBL12</a> <a href="https://t.co/N6FAjNwDO7">pic.twitter.com/N6FAjNwDO7</a></p>— KFC Big Bash League (@BBL) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBL/status/1610212170914238464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Well done Zampa.

Poor from umpire.

 

[Robert]

Well done Zampa.

Poor from umpire.

The umpire was correct as per the new Rule 38:

38.3.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.

In this instance “the instant when the bowler would be expected to release the ball” has passed as the arm has gone over the top - so the batsman cannot be given out Run Out.

This means that Mankaders will have to throw the stumps down *before* their arm goes over the top to get a run out. Which will make Mankading harder.

 

[HitWicket]

In this instance “the instant when the bowler would be expected to release the ball” has passed as the arm has gone over the top - so the batsman cannot be given out Run Out.

This means that Mankaders will have to throw the stumps down *before* their arm goes over the top to get a run out. Which will make Mankading harder.

That may be what the MCC wanted the law to do, but that isn't what the law actually says, give it another read.

There's no requirement for the wicket to be broken before the bowler was expected to release the ball. The batsman just has to leave their ground before the bowler was expected to release the ball (which he did in this situation).

The umpires got it wrong and I suspect the MCC haven't written the law that they thought they were writing.

 

[Robert]

That may be what the MCC wanted the law to do, but that isn't what the law actually says, give it another read.

The umpires got it wrong and I suspect the MCC haven't written the law that they thought they were writing.

I cut and pasted it out of the Laws.

 

[HitWicket]

I cut and pasted it out of the Laws.

Yes, it doesn't say what you've claimed it says below where you've pasted it though. There's no requirement in that law for the wicket to be broken before the expected point of release. What you've claimed it says is probably what the MCC wanted it to say but that's not what they've actually written.

 

[Robert]

Yes, it doesn't say what you've claimed it says below where you've pasted it though. There's no requirement in that law for the wicket to be broken before the expected point of release. What you've claimed it says is probably what the MCC wanted it to say but that's not what they've actually written.

It reads as clear as day to me. Could you quote whatever you are referring to directly please?

 

[cricketjoshila]

This was out. The batsman had left his crease before the bowler's arm passed the vertical.

 

[HitWicket]

It reads as clear as day to me. Could you quote whatever you are referring to directly please?

There are 2 main criteria required by the law:

1) If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out.

The non-striker was out of his ground at some point between the moment the ball came into play and when the bowler would have released the ball, therefore by this criteria he is liable to be run out.

2) In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.

The non-striker was out of his ground when the wicket was put down, therefore he should have been out.

There is nothing in the law stating the wicket must be put down before the ball would have been released.

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Spicy, spicy scenes at the MCG. <br><br>Not out is the call...debate away, friends! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BBL12?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BBL12</a> <a href="https://t.co/N6FAjNwDO7">pic.twitter.com/N6FAjNwDO7</a></p>— KFC Big Bash League (@BBL) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBL/status/1610212170914238464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Adam Zampa admits he may need to practice his 'Mankad' technique but has let it be known that he won't tolerate batters trying to gain an advantage at the non-striker's end.

The Stars captain turned sections of a home MCG crowd against him in a drama-filled Melbourne derby with an attempted run out of Renegades quick Tom Rogers at the non-strikers end in the final over of the first innings.

After conceding two runs to long on off the blade of Mackenzie Harvey, a frustrated Zampa was halfway through his bowling action for the next delivery when he stopped, turned around and removed the bails with Rogers out of his ground.

The decision was sent upstairs by umpire Gerard Abood before being adjudged not out as Zampa's arm had past the point of vertical where he would reasonably be expected to release the ball, meaning under Law 38.3.1 he was no longer permitted to attempt a run out at the non-striker's end.

But some fans in the 38,564-strong crowd certainly made their feelings known throughout the rest of the match with the NSW leg-spinner booed at the halfway mark and when he came out to bat in the final three overs of the innings.

"First time I've seen the home captain booed (at the MCG), so that wasn't ideal," opposition skipper Aaron Finch said during the Channel 7 broadcast.

While Stars head coach David Hussey revealed during the chase they would have withdrawn their appeal had the third umpire given it out, Zampa said a decision wasn't required as Abood make it pretty clear from the outset he believed it was not out.

"I'm not sure what decision I would have went with once the ruling had been made," Zampa said following the Stars' 33-run loss.

"But basically, Gerard said straight away 'you finished your action, I don't think it's out' so it didn't matter.

"As soon as Gerard said that I knew it wasn't going to be out because I'd known how far my arm had come over.

"I didn't know the (vertical) rule, I thought you actually had to let the ball go … but apparently it's if you've finished your action and they can assume you've bowled the ball then they're allowed to leave the crease."

Zampa admits he saw "red a little bit" when he believed Rogers to be running out of non-striker's end crease to gain an advantage the ball prior.

"I was well within my rights to do it, it's in the rulebook," he said.

"Mackenzie Harvey had just hit the ball and it felt like he was three metres away from Mackenzie.

"I bowled a good ball to Mackenzie Harvey, which probably should have been one if he hadn't done that.

"So I thought before that ball that if he doesn't want to be on strike, I'll make it a bit easier for him."

While Rogers did indeed leave the crease prior to Zampa's bowling arm reaching vertical when the Aussie spinner did attempt the run out, analysis of the ball prior by cricket.com.au found that he was still in his ground when Zampa released the ball.

Zampa didn't rule out attempting the dismissal again if presented with a similar situation but did clarify that if it happened earlier in the innings and not in the last over then he would probably give more of a warning.

"It's building up the rivalry as well, it always feels like something happens in these games that you can talk about for a while, and this is probably going to be it now, isn't it?" said Zampa.

"These competitions are built on rivalry and the Melbourne Renegades versus Melbourne Stars is one of the most important of the competition, so if it just sparked a little fire under derby, then so be it."

It was an incident that Rogers said fired him up a little bit as he came out all guns blazing in the second innings, claiming a wicket with the second delivery of the Stars' chase and another two in his second over to leave the Stars reeling at 3-12.

The home side would never recover as Rogers finished with a career-best haul of 5-16 from his four overs.

"But to be honest, we were pretty ready and raring to go for this one, it's a derby and we've dropped (four) coming into this one after a pretty good start," he said after his player-of-the-match performance.

"(We're) so lucky to play cricket and have 40,000 people roll out and watch us, it's just bloody exciting and if you can't get up for that there's something's wrong with you.

"I woke up in good spirits and feeling good coming into the game and it's just fantastic to contribute to a win and an important one of at that."

The pair seemed in good spirits after the match, and despite being a little confused with the exact Law, Rogers said he had been staying in his crease longer that he has in the past given the topical nature of the dismissal.

"I thought I was going to be OK, but I'm not too sure about it. The umpires are doing a good job and thankfully put it not out," he said.

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/ada...sh-melbourne-derby-stars-renegades/2023-01-03

 

[ex-q-zit]

R Ashwin Trends After Adam Zampa's Run-Out Attempt At Non-Striker's End Is Overturned In Big Bash League Match

Adam Zampa's run out attempt at the non-striker's end in a Big Bash League (BBL) game is making news all around the world. The Melbourne Stars skipper attempted to run out Melbourne Renegades' Tom Rogers at the non-striker's end as he went out of the crease. Mackenzie Harvey, who was at the other end batting, shook his head in disbelief. The decision was reviewed and the third umpire did not consider it a run out as Zampa's arm had "gone past the vertical". Zampa's bowling arm had gone past the bowling crease when he ran out the batter, which according to ICC rule is not considered legal for such a dismissal.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Spicy, spicy scenes at the MCG. <br><br>Not out is the call...debate away, friends! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BBL12?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BBL12</a> <a href="https://t.co/N6FAjNwDO7">pic.twitter.com/N6FAjNwDO7</a></p>— KFC Big Bash League (@BBL) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBL/status/1610212170914238464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Zampa was bought by Rajasthan Royals in the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2023 auction. The RR camp also has two players - Ravichandran Ashwin and Jos Buttler - who were earlier involved in a run out incident in the IPL. The incident happenned at the IPL 2019 when Ravichandran Ashwin, then playing for Kings XI Punjab, ran out RR's Jos Buttler at the non-striker's end after he backed up too far.

Now, after Zampa effected the run out and the decision was overturned, Ashwin started trending on Twitter. After the incident several players and even Rajasthan Royals reacted on the issue.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="art" dir="ltr">&#55358;&#56622;&#55358;&#56622; <a href="https://t.co/yWCrfTnSpn">https://t.co/yWCrfTnSpn</a></p>— Liam Livingstone (@liaml4893) <a href="https://twitter.com/liaml4893/status/1610223705795301377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Regarding a mankad, what is the difference between being stumped at the strikers end and being mankadded at the non strikers end really. This coming from a batter - we should just stay in the crease - Not to mention how tight run outs are these days, every cm counts. Fair game</p>— Joe Burns (@joeburns441) <a href="https://twitter.com/joeburns441/status/1610235013781676033?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">Hmmmm &#55357;&#56384;&#55357;&#56834; <a href="https://t.co/t5wEYeGviO">https://t.co/t5wEYeGviO</a> <a href="https://t.co/aeQDJ7MENR">pic.twitter.com/aeQDJ7MENR</a></p>— Rajasthan Royals (@rajasthanroyals) <a href="https://twitter.com/rajasthanroyals/status/1610228954979500032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The Marylebone Cricket Club, which is an authority on the laws of cricket, wrote on Twitter: "The non-striker can be run out if he/she is out of his/her ground up until the moment the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball. That means when the arm gets to its highest point. The bowler is *not* entitled to go all the way around in the bowling action and then run the non-striker out."

NDTV

 

[WengerOut]

I am more annoyed by the fake moral high ground taken by the 'angelic' English guys.

 

[jnaveen1980]

That is a massive head start by batsmen. Come on this is ridiculous.

 

[dodo.2k]

They should change the name of this mode of dismissal to "Caught Stealing". This would be in line with baseball. It will also function as a way to make sure that people think of this as an illegal way for the batsman to get advantage, rather than blaming the bowler.

 

[MP2011]

That is a massive head start by batsmen. Come on this is ridiculous.

Indeed. That amounted to cheating on part of the runner.

That's why I said, poor from umpire.

 

[Gilly]

Indeed. That amounted to cheating on part of the runner.

That's why I said, poor from umpire.

Nothing to do with the umpire.

 

[badsha001]

The question isn't whether or not non-striker was outside the crease but rather whether or not the bowler went past the release point of the delivery which is clearly the case here. Good decision of not out

 

[MP2011]

Nothing to do with the umpire.

But it was given not out later.

 

[Robert]

Indeed. That amounted to cheating on part of the runner.

That's why I said, poor from umpire.

There’s no Law to ban backing up - only how to effect a run-out, and the ump acted correctly according to the current run-out Law.

 

[Robert]

There are 2 main criteria required by the law:



The non-striker was out of his ground at some point between the moment the ball came into play and when the bowler would have released the ball, therefore by this criteria he is liable to be run out.


The non-striker was out of his ground when the wicket was put down, therefore he should have been out.

There is nothing in the law stating the wicket must be put down before the ball would have been released.

Read it again. It’s right there in the part I quoted.

The phase of play where the runner was liable to be run out had elapsed by the time the bowler’s arm passed vertical.

Had the bowler broken the stumps at any point after the batter left the crease *and* before the bowler’s arm reached vertical, he would have been out.

 

[jnaveen1980]

When the bowler effects the run out before release point then he will be accused of setting up. Why don't they simplify it by saying, batsmen have to stay inside the crease until the ball is released.

 

[JattMaula]

Revolution against snobbery will be long and it will be televised.

 

[Robert]

When the bowler effects the run out before release point then he will be accused of setting up.

It will be Lawful so no problem.

 

[jnaveen1980]

It will be Lawful so no problem.

Actually it is easier for Zampa to do that way. He has learnt a lesson. Next time he will do the right way now that he is going to be team mate of Ashwin !

 

[HitWicket]

Read it again. It’s right there in the part I quoted.

The phase of play where the runner was liable to be run out had elapsed by the time the bowler’s arm passed vertical.

Had the bowler broken the stumps at any point after the batter left the crease *and* before the bowler’s arm reached vertical, he would have been out.

It's not, you're reading something that isn't there. There's nothing in the law that says the player is only liable to be run out in the phase of play before the arm reaches the vertical. The only requirement in the way the law is written is that the batsman must have been outside his crease at some point before the bowlers arm reached the vertical.

This is what the law says:
38.3.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out.

This is what you're suggesting the law says:
38.3.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground they are liable to be run out at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball.

There's a very clear difference between what the 2 actually mean.

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The non-striker can be run out if he/she is out of his/her ground up until the moment the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball.<br><br>That means when the arm gets to its highest point. (1/2)<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MCCLaws?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MCCLaws</a> | <a href="https://twitter.com/BBL?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BBL</a><a href="https://t.co/fWtdJAtIh1">pic.twitter.com/fWtdJAtIh1</a></p>— Marylebone Cricket Club (@MCCOfficial) <a href="https://twitter.com/MCCOfficial/status/1610223678222143489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Robert]

It's not, you're reading something that isn't there. There's nothing in the law that says the player is only liable to be run out in the phase of play before the arm reaches the vertical. The only requirement in the way the law is written is that the batsman must have been outside his crease at some point before the bowlers arm reached the vertical.

This is what the law says:
38.3.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out.

This is what you're suggesting the law says:
38.3.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground they are liable to be run out at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball.

There's a very clear difference between what the 2 actually mean.

I don’t see any difference.

 

[Robert]

Actually it is easier for Zampa to do that way. He has learnt a lesson. Next time he will do the right way now that he is going to be team mate of Ashwin !

He could have aborted his action and broken the stumps. I see nothing against the spirit of cricket in this. I like the idea of a “baulk” rule as in baseball though.

 

[MenInG]

Earlier this week, controversy erupted in the Big Bash League when Melbourne Stars' captain Adam Zampa attempted a run out at the non strikers' end to dismiss Tom Rogers, who plays for the Renegades. Zampa completed his follow-through and was on the verge of releasing the ball to Mackenzie Harvey when he turned back and dislodged Rogers' bails, and signalled to the umpire to give marching orders to the batter.

However, unperturbed by Zampa's call, the umpire first reasoned out with the bowler, telling him that his arm had gone past the 'vertical' -- the point where the ball is deemed to be bowled. He then checked with the TV umpire, who also came up with the same verdict, thus giving Rogers a reprieve.

The incident triggered the debate surrounding the dismissal again, which is widely seen as taboo because many believe it's against the spirit of the game, despite it being included in the ‘Run out’ section by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) last year. India off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin, one of the leading champions for the dismissal, has now spoken on the incident in the BBL.

“I am tired of talking or writing about this topic. Every time this incident happens, there are preachers who hop in and start preaching. But the best thing I loved from this whole incident is the stare given by Adam Zampa after running out the non-striker. It was similar to The Undertaker’s stare in World Wrestling Federation. He didn’t even say a word to the batsman. The batsman also stood in silence without knowing whether it was out or not out,” Ashwin began on his official YouTube channel.

“People will talk about the legality of the dismissal. That he has completed his action and stuff like that. But see, he was about to bowl, and the non-striker had started running. In fact, the rule clearly states that you can run anywhere as soon as the bowler releases since he can’t run you out anymore once he releases. If you ask me if the non-striker starts running once the bowler releases, that in itself is an advantage for the non-striker. Because the batsman hasn’t made an impact yet. And I don’t know how many balls come back to the bowler as the batter rarely plays defense in T20.”

Ashwin also criticised David Hussey (Stars' coach) for his comment on the incident; Hussey had said that they would've withdrawn the appeal had the batter been given out.

“I don’t believe what he said. Because if you wanted to withdraw the appeal, you need not have taken that to the third umpire itself. You could have easily withdrawn that appeal even before it had gone to the third umpire. First of all, why should you withdraw the appeal? A bowler is running the non-striker out. The captain will say that the bowler is wrong or what? What a big insult that is to the bowler if the captain is withdrawing the appeal,” said Ashwin.

"If I am standing there as a bowler and appealing for this dismissal, and if the captain or coach says that they are withdrawing the appeal, it is very insulting. Because once you do that, as a bowler, you will feel that what is the point in bowling when your team is not backing you? My team captain and coach themselves are not backing me. Why should I bowl and win you the game then?

“The bowlers will feel depressed once you do that. And David Hussey was like, ‘This is not how you play cricket’. Sir, this is now how you want to play cricket. But for that, you can’t assume and say, ‘This is now how you should also play cricket’. This is absolutely wrong,” said Ashwin further.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...-zampa-s-run-out-attempt-101673001647385.html

 

[MenInG]

This does take the cake a bit

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/07p0jc" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

 

[jnaveen1980]

This does take the cake a bit

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/07p0jc" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

About to post that lol He is almost at the other end. It is like Usain boult steaming off.

 

[MenInG]

In a match where Virat Kohli scored a record-equalling ton and Sri Lanka skipper Dasun Shanaka hit a heroic unbeaten century, Mohammed Shami's attempt to run out the latter at the non-striker's end took a bit of the spotlight. It happened in the last over with Shanaka batting on 98. Shami, while bowling the fourth delivery, removed the bails at the non-striker's end with Shanaka backing up too far. The on-field umpire asked for third umpire's opinion but India captain Rohit Sharma intervened and withdrew the appeal. Shanaka then went on to score his 2nd ODI ton.

Later at the post-match presentation, Rohit said: "I had no idea he (Shami) did that. Shanaka was batting on 98. We got to be... We cannot get him out like that. Hats off to him."

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 54.717%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/o3b648" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

NDTV

 

[MP2011]

Poor from Rohit.

He won't be as 'magnanimous' in a tight game as he was yesterday with Shanaka.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

In a match where Virat Kohli scored a record-equalling ton and Sri Lanka skipper Dasun Shanaka hit a heroic unbeaten century, Mohammed Shami's attempt to run out the latter at the non-striker's end took a bit of the spotlight. It happened in the last over with Shanaka batting on 98. Shami, while bowling the fourth delivery, removed the bails at the non-striker's end with Shanaka backing up too far. The on-field umpire asked for third umpire's opinion but India captain Rohit Sharma intervened and withdrew the appeal. Shanaka then went on to score his 2nd ODI ton.

Later at the post-match presentation, Rohit said: "I had no idea he (Shami) did that. Shanaka was batting on 98. We got to be... We cannot get him out like that. Hats off to him."

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 54.717%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/o3b648" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

NDTV

Cricket is better off with people like Rohit than with people like Mankad.

Much respect to him.

You can talk rules and unfairness until you are blue in the face. Sports traditions trump those notions because they are not just about winning, but also about how you win.

Well done to Rohit.

 

[ex-q-zit]

Cricket-Cannot get Shanaka out like that, India's Rohit says on withdrawing 'Mankad' appeal

India captain Rohit Sharma said he withdrew a 'Mankad' run-out appeal against Dasun Shanaka in Tuesday's one-day international as that was not how they envisioned dismissing the Sri Lankan skipper, who scored a century in a game his team could not win.

With Sri Lanka requiring 83 runs off the last three balls in the second innings, India's Mohammed Shami ran into bowl but whipped the bails at the non-striker's end as Shanaka - who was then on 98 - left his crease.

Shami appealed for a run-out as the umpire signalled for a TV review before Rohit stepped in and withdrew the appeal after a chat with the umpire.

"I had no idea Shami did that and then went for an appeal," Rohit said in a post-match interview. "Again, he is batting on 98. The way he batted was brilliant, we've got to give it to him. We cannot get him out like that.

"We wanted to get him out the way we thought we would get him out, but that was not something that we thought of. But again, hats off to him, he played really well."

The 'Mankad' dismissal, named after former India all-rounder Vinoo Mankad, is legal but has fuelled debate as to whether it breaches the spirit of the game.

Shanaka eventually brought up his century on the penultimate delivery of the innings before wrapping things up with a six to finish with an unbeaten 108.

India won by 67 runs to take a 1-0 lead in the three-match series.

MSN

 

[jnaveen1980]

Cricket is better off with people like Rohit than with people like Mankad.

Much respect to him.

You can talk rules and unfairness until you are blue in the face. Sports traditions trump those notions because they are not just about winning, but also about how you win.

Well done to Rohit.

What? In a desperate attempt to retain strike so that he can score a 100, he violated the rule. I am not sure what is big deal in withdrawing an appeal. Same Srilankans when Sewhag i think needed a run to g et to 100, 1 to win deliberately bowled a noball and denied the century.

 

[shamaan]

Cricket is better off with people like Rohit than with people like Mankad.

Much respect to him.

You can talk rules and unfairness until you are blue in the face. Sports traditions trump those notions because they are not just about winning, but also about how you win.

Well done to Rohit.

Let's see if he does the same when the game is alot closer.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Let's see if he does the same when the game is alot closer.

They misjudged a previous run. He was close to getting a 100. So he wanted the strike. Rohit brough all the fielders in. So he needed a head start. He was outside the crease. Not sure why Rohit withdrew the appeal. if it is because he wanted him to score his 100.

 

[shamaan]

They misjudged a previous run. He was close to getting a 100. So he wanted the strike. Rohit brough all the fielders in. So he needed a head start. He was outside the crease. Not sure why Rohit withdrew the appeal. if it is because he wanted him to score his 100.

I think he shouldn't have withdrew his appeal i bet Kohli wouldnt have ?

 

[PakEngFan]

Pathetic from our bowling is as good as West Indies of the 70s.

 

[MP2011]

They misjudged a previous run. He was close to getting a 100. So he wanted the strike. Rohit brough all the fielders in. So he needed a head start. He was outside the crease. Not sure why Rohit withdrew the appeal. if it is because he wanted him to score his 100.

Yeah. It was a poor gesture from Rohit, has gone completely insane with age.

Why do you want an opposition bat to complete his ton even if ignore what Sanga did with Sehwag few years back?

Shami was well within his rights to run Shanaka out which he did. Rather it reflects poorly on Rohit for what he did even after what's been our public stand in this matter.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

He has just wrong footed primarily his own countrymen who are out in force supporting mankading.

In most other countries, crowds boo this kind of behavior such as they did Zampa. Good on them.

Some may not have time for traditions, and everything is about lakhs and crores and lakh crores, but for some, sport is more than just rules.

 

[MenInG]

In a match where Virat Kohli scored a record-equalling ton and Sri Lanka skipper Dasun Shanaka hit a heroic unbeaten century, Mohammed Shami's attempt to run out the latter at the non-striker's end took a bit of the spotlight. It happened in the last over with Shanaka batting on 98. Shami, while bowling the fourth delivery, removed the bails at the non-striker's end with Shanaka backing up too far. The on-field umpire asked for third umpire's opinion but India captain Rohit Sharma intervened and withdrew the appeal. Shanaka then went on to score his 2nd ODI ton.

Later at the post-match presentation, Rohit said: "I had no idea he (Shami) did that. Shanaka was batting on 98. We got to be... We cannot get him out like that. Hats off to him."

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 54.717%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/o3b648" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

NDTV

Ravi Ashwin on this topic:

“Of course, Shami’s run out. When Shanaka was on 98, Shami ran him out in the non-striker’s end, and he appealed too. Rohit withdrew that appeal. So many people tweeted about that immediately. I am going to keep repeating only one thing, guys. The game situation is immaterial. That is a legitimate form of dismissal,” Ashwin began.

"And if you ask an lbw appeal, or a caught-behind appeal, nobody will check with the captain on whether they are sure with the appeal like a Sarath Kumar or an Amitabh Bachchan in Kaun Banega Crorepati.

“They will give him out if the bowler appeals and that is the end of it. See, even if one fielder appeals, it is the duty of the umpire to declare a player out if he is out,” said Ashwin.

Ashwin gave another example from the batter's perspective, stating that the captain of the batting team doesn't ask his player to continue to bat if the latter has walked.

“I find it very surprising to have so many taboos surrounding this mode of dismissal. But the entire dismissal is regarding what the bowler does, right? The right of making that dismissal or making that appeal or making that decision lies with the bowler, right?” said Ashwin.

"In so many games, a batter has nicked and walked without waiting for the umpire’s decision. At that time, the batting team captain won’t come and ask, “With whose permission did you walk like that? Did you forget the team’s cause? Go back and continue playing.”

“So, these different treatments for bowlers and batters have been taking place for so many years now.”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...rawing-appeal-in-1st-odi-101673713780255.html

 

[jnaveen1980]

That is a legitimate point. Why should captain have the authority to withdraw an appeal by his team mate. He is not a king. He is just another player whose role stops at setting fields, deciding batting order, ringing bowling changes.

 

[MP2011]

That is a legitimate point. Why should captain have the authority to withdraw an appeal by his team mate. He is not a king. He is just another player whose role stops at setting fields, deciding batting order, ringing bowling changes.

Indeed. That's why I said it was poor of Rohit to withdraw the appeal. He basically hung Shami to dry after the latter affected a totally legitimate mode of dismissal.

 

[MP2011]

If Rohit's line of thinking is correct, no batsman deserves to be dismissed in 90s, 190s or 290s.

 

[MenInG]

Pakistan Womens have arrived on the scene - this from U19 ICC Womens WC vs Rwanda

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.426%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/yustpx" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

 

[HitWicket]

Was the appeal withdrawn? All 3 run outs on the scorecard are credited to the keeper.

 

[MenInG]

Was the appeal withdrawn? All 3 run outs on the scorecard are credited to the keeper.

Strange - I saw one on Cricket Australia where its with the bowler

https://live.cricket.com.au/match/3...n-icc-womens-u19-t20-world-cup-2023/scorecard

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Yes right , Bowlers planning to get a player out by legal means is the worst thing<br>Batsman wanting to take unfair advantage by not staying back in the crease is the best thing &#55357;&#56835; <a href="https://t.co/6BLpyLDiAP">https://t.co/6BLpyLDiAP</a></p>— Venkatesh Prasad (@venkateshprasad) <a href="https://twitter.com/venkateshprasad/status/1614892451285864450?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 16, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>