Spirit, Laws and latter's share of stigma for bowlers

Cricketers akin to athletes from other sports are known to go berserk as soon as the battle lines are drawn. Although conventionally these battles are fought in cricket stadiums around the world, quite eccentrically the micro blogging site Twitter has found itself as the newest venue of one of cricket's ongoing blow-ups.

Mankad is in the rules,but I hope it’s not a go too tactic .. You surely don’t train all your lives to win a game using that tactic .. and I know Batters should train to stay behind the line but it stinks seeing a game won like that .. Yesterday was a bloody good game too #India

— Michael Vaughan (@MichaelVaughan) September 25, 2022

Spot on. No intention of bowling the ball 🤬

— James Anderson (@jimmy9) September 24, 2022

There’s surely not a person who has played the game that thinks this is acceptable?

Just not cricket… https://t.co/VLGeddDlrz

— Sam Billings (@sambillings) September 24, 2022

Absolutely pathetic way to 'win' a cricket match.
The whole India team should be ashamed of themselves. https://t.co/TrGcU8CwqW

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) September 24, 2022

If you are someone who couldn't follow the third ODI between England and India at Lord's on Sunday, (September 24) and stumbled upon the above-mentioned tweets, then it is highly likely that it would have made you wonder that Deepti Sharma must have committed a felony to be subjected to such all-round flak. But as freakish as it may sound, Deepti has been copping all the censure for abiding by the laws of the game.

With 17 needed off 40 balls and a wicket in the kitty, England were ahead by the barest of inches. Their biggest hope was Charlie Dean, who was set on 47 off 80 deliveries and perhaps Dean too was aware of the same. And that's probably the reason why she was desperate to get to the striker's end.

But often in cricket similar to any other walk of life, it is equanimity that leads you to glory and the ones sailing in a desperate boat end up agonisingly short of their destination.

Driven by sheer desperation to get to the business end and propel England closer to the target, Dean backed up too much and too early. Her desperation was put to a tragic end by a death rattle at the non-striker's end, followed by a huge approbation by the Indian spectators at the ground.

Dean was found backing up too much as Deepti whipped the bails off. The on-field umpires referred it upstairs and the TV umpire Mike Burns adjudged Dean out, which followed yet another deafening ovation.

India bagged the game and swept the series 3-0. In a utopian world, where laws are paramount and go unquestioned, an incident like this would have found its place quietly in a history book. But as ours is not a utopian world, Deepti's act (though will find its place in history) - the first in the history of Women's ODIs, saw her cop a barrage of verbal volleys.

Probably struck with the premonition of how things were going to pan out, MCC (Marylebone Cricket Club), the custodians of the game, was quick to put out a statement. "MCC's message to non-strikers continues to be to remain in their ground until they have seen the ball leave the bowler's hand.

"Then dismissals, such as the one seen yesterday, cannot happen. Whilst yesterday was indeed an unusual end to an exciting match, it was properly officiated and should not be considered as anything more."

The law, according to which Dean was adjudged out, says, "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."

Hence, Deepti's action was well within the laws of the game but despite that people and quite a lot of them are decrying her move.

The ones lambasting Deepti are blatantly turning a blind eye to the fact Charlie Dean left her crease early as many as 73 times (a fact highlighted by cricket journalist Peter Della Penna) before the former ran her out.

Final notes on this thread. Dean left her crease early 73 times from non-striker's end, including the ball she got out to. That accounted for more than 85% of all balls she started at the non-striker's end. Basically 5 out of every 6 balls in an over, there was an opportunity.

— Peter Della Penna (@PeterDellaPenna) September 26, 2022

It beggars belief how the same 'spirit of the game' debate changes dramatically when a batter waits for the umpire's verdict despite edging the ball and getting caught behind or anywhere on the field of play.

The decision of the batter to stand his ground and wait for the umpire's verdict is fair and well within the laws of the game. A batter is entitled to stand his/her ground until he/she is adjudged out. But doesn't that same action contradicts the spirit of the game?

When a batter chooses not to walk despite edging the ball and is adjudged not out, the commentators on air mention it and it ends there.

Ranging from the incidents where one clearly does not require the Ultra Edge to trace the edge to the ones where it (Ultra Rdge) is required, batters walk away happily with their innings (if they are adjudged not out) and the title of being an apostle of the spirit of the game.

Why isn't a batter's action to await the umpire's decision deemed as egregious as a bowler's attempt of running a batter out when the batter is clearly trying to take undue advantage?

Are bowlers supposed to just turn up under the scorching hot sun and get hammered to all parts of the ground? And if they turn up the heat on the batters then the ones sitting in the upper echelons start questioning the wickets?

Although they didn't let it out, it is highly likely that Deepti's absurd denunciation must have made many bowlers around the world wonder - how a game that adjudicates them to rebowl a delivery if they don't manage to keep any part of their landing foot behind the crease at the time of release fails to protect them from the stigma when they restrain the batters from crossing the same line before the ball comes into play?

Why during incidents like Deepti's only bowlers are expected to shoulder the onus of the spirit of the game and not batters while the latter is seen driving home the credit for the same on paper almost always?

Spirit of the game is an unwritten value system that urges players to show character and put the sport above victory or defeat. Unlike a law, you are not bound by it. It is rather based on your moral conscience.

If a Paul Collingwood, who didn't recall an unfortunate Grant Elliott (who was run out after colliding with Ryan Sidebottom in the 4th ODI in 2008) to resume his innings, is not bound by the spirit of the game, then so isn't a Daniel Vettori, who despite being Collingwood's counterpart that evening decided not to settle the score with Collingwood, who was roaming outside his crease when Brendon McCullum dislodged the bails while the ball was still in play during a 2009 Champions Trophy clash.