JOIN USPonting's 'hard talk' with Ashwin is crossing the line
Ricky Ponting, the hard-nosed Aussie that he is, had once urged his team-mates not to emulate one-time deputy Adam Gilchrist in 'walking' before the umpire ruled a batsman out. He even defended Stuart Broad, who stood his ground after nicking a ball to slip and umpire Aleem Dar failed to notice the thick edge during the 2013 Ashes.
Considering his track record, it seemed, therefore, a bit rich that he chose to lecture on the spirit of cricket while emphasising that he would discourage R Ashwin from "Mankading." During the last IPL season, Ashwin's dismissal of Rajasthan Royals’ batsman Jos Buttler, who had stepped out of his crease before the off-spinner had gone through his bowling action, created quite a stir and sharply polarised opinions. While several cricketers and fans panned Ashwin's action, a significant number defended his choice, too.
Ashwin, then the Kings XI Punjab skipper, is now with Delhi Capitals, coached by Ponting. It’s evident that the former Australian captain doesn't mind infringing upon his own player's rights to uphold his interpretation of the spirit of cricket. A batsman is well within his rights to not walk, even if he has nicked the ball, until the umpire declares him so. Similarly, a bowler too has been empowered by MCC's Laws on cricket to run out a non-striker who leaves the crease early, whether to gain an unfair advantage or not.
Whenever there has been a tussle between a law and the spirit of cricket, suitable changes have been made based on the merits of the argument.
For example, bowling deliberately into a batsman’s body (like in the infamous bodyline series) or under-arm bowling (like Trevor Chappell against New Zealand under the instruction of his elder brother and skipper Greg to deny the Kiwis a tie) were debated extensively before leg-theory and under-arm were outlawed as they were deemed not in line with the highest traditions of the game.
The late Vinoo Mankad, the legendary all-rounder, ran out a backing up Bill Brown at the non-striker’s end during India’s first tour of Australia in 1947, the first instance of such a dismissal in Test cricket. Subsequently, ‘Mankading’ has been debated and dissected, dissed and defended several times over but MCC, the guardians of the laws of cricket, have always upheld the ruling relating to Mankading. What’s even more ironic is that Ponting currently sits on the very panel -- MCC World Cricket Committee – that approves these laws governing the game of cricket.
In fact, the amended law in 2017 further strengthened the bowler’s case and put the onus completely on the non-striker to remain in his/her ground.
As per the old law, a bowler was allowed to run out a non-striker before entering his delivery stride. The amended law states that a non-striker can be run out up to the “instant at which the bowler would be expected to deliver the ball.” What it has done basically is given more time for the bowler to dismiss the erring non-striker.
The new law (41.16) states thus. “A non-striker leaving his/her ground early: If the non-striker is out of his/her ground from the moment the ball comes into play to the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the bowler is permitted to attempt to run him/her out. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one in the over."
That said, Ponting may be taking refuge in the MCC’s statement post Buttler’s run out, wherein it upheld the legitimacy of the dismissal but found Ashwin’s “long pause” to be against the spirit of cricket. What should be kept in mind here though is that once Ashwin took the bails off and appealed for a run out, the on-field umpire referred the matter to the TV umpire (Bruce Oxenford), who pressed the red button after examining multiple replays of the incident.
That, one would assume, should have settled the issue because the ambiguity over an on-field umpire’s call (in DRS) is settled by the third umpire. If this is acceptable, then so too should be the other one. But call it the batsman’s sense of entitlement or a warped sense of western moral high ground, the debate continues.