Balancing the bowling crease - time to abolish Mankading?

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 can be trickier - especially in instances when a single event gives rise to diverging opinions.

Among the multiple ways of dismissing a batter, the most contentious is probably that of a bowler running out the non-striker in his run-up. The non-striker thus gets dismissed even before the delivery is completed. This form of dismissal is commonly referred to as ‘Mankading’.

Mankading has commanded extraordinary attention over the last few years and serves as a fitting example of conflicting perceptions. With ever-increasing focus, is it time to revisit the scope of the dismissal, and instead look at other options that could discourage non-strikers from stepping out of their crease?

The spirit of cricket is usually called into question whenever a batsman is 'mankaded'. Cricket is a contest between bat and ball; such a run-out invariably nullifies the essence of the game 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 that regard, a non-playing batter getting dismissed for erroneously crossing the crease appears to be a moral offense 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. Certain rules offering disproportionate benefits, such as acquiring the services of a runner for an injured batter, have been revised over the years. On that backdrop, mankading appears, even more, to be grossly inappropriate. However, the argument is equally strong, if not stronger, in favor of the other side for retention of the law!

The bowling crease needs to be equal for the bowler and the non-striker

Imagine (or rather remember the last time you saw) 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, he benefits from a massive advantage that is unaccounted for, 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, which 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 he commits a mistake, and turn into the villain if he ends up running out the guilty batter.

Modern day cricket has skewed towards a contest between bats, rather than between the bat and the 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 legitimize this mode of getting a batter out. The stigma and ambivalent interpretation around Mankading needs to stop. Cricket’s law-makers and governing bodies need to either make the rule simpler by taking out the ‘warning’ bit in mankading, or abolishing this form of dismissal altogether by offering the bowlers a real deal. While the former simply requires acceptance and no reforms, 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 the bowler’s delivery stride. Is it time for the TV umpire to start tracking the non-striker'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 running hard between wickets. Shorter formats have necessitated capicapitalizing on every run. The trend of non-strikers setting off early is only likely to increase, if left unnoticed. The onus of keeping tabs 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 penalized 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 a justifiable transition towards eradicating a highly controversial mode of dismissal.

Rules in cricket have often treaded a thin line, and now is a good time for course-correction to make the bowling crease equitable.