Sportsmanship and Legality…
Recently I wrote a post about sexism and its place in sport. My underlying premise there was that ‘context is everything’. There’s a massive debate currently raging on the ‘spirit of cricket’ in the wake of the latest version of Mankading to ‘blight’ the U19 Cricket World Cup currently being played in Bangladesh. Here too, I would like to argue, that context remains everything.
The incident took place when West Indian bowler Paul Keema, bowling the last over of the game to his Zimbabwean opponent who needed 3 runs to win off the last 6 balls, knocked off the non striker’s bails, without breaking stride. Richard Ngarava was on the line or millimeteres outside it. The consequent appeal resulted in the non-striker correctly being given out by the third umpire, and Zimbabwe losing the match by two runs. You can watch the whole episode here.
What is the furore about? It’s about the Spirit of Cricket apparently being violated. Was it? It’s debatable.
The preamble to the laws of the game set out the spirit of cricket which must be adhered to ‘as well as’ the laws of the game. To the lawyer in me, this casts an additional burden on players and umpires to uphold a tricky set of values in addition to enforcing, the rather complex, laws of the game. There is a requirement to respect your opponents, the captain, the umpires and – here’s the toughie – ‘the games traditional values’. And traditionally, we are led to believe, that cricket was a ‘gentleman’s game’. Was the spirit of cricket violated by Keema’s actions? Probably not. On reading the preamble, none of the West Indian youngster’s actions are condemnable under the aspects of the ‘spirit’ as listed. Except of course that mysterious notion of traditional values, which have more or less disappeared now that India control cricket and Australia and England are in bed with them.
There are a few people – surprisingly Darren Lehmann among then – that have suggested that the Zimbabwean batsman was not out. Those people are mistaken. Law 38 very clearly states that ‘either’ batsman may be out if they have left their ground once the ball is ‘in play’. The ball is ‘in play’ from the time the bowlers starts his run up. Therefore, technically, there is absolutely no way to argue that Ngarava was not out.
What has caused the debate then? If Keema’s actions are within the so-called spirit and also within the laws, why is there a debate at all? Because – I think – it falls within the far more universal code of ‘sportsmanship’, which it must also be said, is narrowing in its scope given the high stakes of international sport. Whereas the spirit of cricket is codified, the norms of sportsmanship are amorphous, and differ contextually based on the facts and circumstances of each incident. The fact that they have been broken is indicated not by some violation of a code, but by the grimace on the face of those watching.
For instances, you will not find me arguing for a moment that Sachithra Senanayake’s Mankadding of Jos Buttler was ‘unsporting’. When you watch the incident you realise that Buttler is warned by Senanayake. He is also a metre outside his crease, which can make all the difference in a run out. The England keeper was, ex facie, trying to exploit the bowler’s ‘sportsmanship’, i.e. – that he wouldn’t run him out, in order to gain an advantage for himself. Senanayake warned him, and then, on the next ball, ran him out, much to the chagrin of the sanctimonious English team and press. Buttler’s impunity at completely ignoring the bowler’s and umpire’s warning, got its just desserts. There can be very little case to be made that Senanayake’s actions were unsporting and that Mathews’ unwillingness to withdraw the appeal were against the spirit of the game. Buttler was blatantly and repeatedly cheating by getting a false start. Runners in a hundred metre race don’t get to start in front of the blocks. Same difference ESPECIALLY in the context of the warning.
The Sri Lankans in that instance also mentioned that the Mankad was a reaction to the previous ODI, where Buttler had done the same thing and stolen many twos, which would otherwise have resulted in run outs and won England the match. It was a reaction to persistent exploitation of the ‘spirit’ by England, and Sri Lanka were well within their rights. So bollocks to spirit.
While sports may have been likened by some to being ‘war minus the shooting’, there does exist an ethos of ‘sportsmanship’ which Paul Keema trangressed in this instance. Sports is a little more than war minus the shooting. Lives are generally not at stake, and we can expect a higher standard from widely televised, highly paid sportspeople, than we do from soldiers literally fighting for their lives, without any cameras present. The current incident differs in that the warnings were missing, persistent cheating on the part of Ngarava was missing, the impunity and intention to steal a run was missing, and the bowler was clearly executing the strategy from the word go. He had NO intention of bowling the ball, as he would have had to be in his delivery stride well before being able to knock the bails off. If you watch the batsman carefully he is expecting the bowler to go into his stride and raising his head to look at the striker at the same time. It is that action that drags his bat ever so slightly wide of the crease. If Keema had run up to actually bowl the ball, the run-out could not have been effected the way it was. The Mankad is entirely excusable if – like Buttler – the batsman is being a douchebag. But in this case nothing indicates that Ngarava was.
In fact, it is the bowler who enacted an elaborate ruse – perhaps expecting the last man to back up further – by running up as if to bowl the ball, with no intention of doing so. Most other Mankads have been when a bowler stops short in his delivery stride or just prior, and then flicks the bails. None of this sneaky, sleight of hand stuff that Keema pulled off. It was an attempt to win the game at all costs, and that leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
It is exactly what Greg Chappell ordered his brother to do in the now infamous underarm incident. That too was to prevent NZ tying the game with a six off the last ball, and having to play an extra match. It was described at the time by Richie Benaud – a predecessor to Chappell – as a ‘disgrace’, and rightly so.
While some acts are legal on the field, there is an accompanying, instinctive sense of injustice about them. They are acts that sportsmen try and avoid. Acts that when unprovoked by dubious behaviour of your opponent, are unpalatable. It’s why tennis players raise their arm in apology when a ball hits the tape and drops over the net. It’s why footballers kick the ball out when an opposition players is injured, and that’s why the opposition give the ball back to the other team when play restarts. It’s why, in such a violent game, rugby players never take their boot studs near an opponents head or face, and it’s why such grave exception is taken if such a thing were to occur. There is a code. A code of honourable conduct. One that cannot be exhaustively legislated for despite the MCC’s best efforts.
This is because of the underlying notion that sports need to be a fair competition. It’s why boxing doesn’t allow below the belt punches, and why – even in a streetfight – a sucker punch is viewed as cowardly. Sports – in its purest form – requires you to beat your opponent ‘fairly’. When he’s ready for you. That’s when you can really call yourself a winner. The West Indians were clear underdogs going into that final over. Keema didn’t want to be the man that gave away the winning runs. He did what he had to do. All’s fair in love and war, but not sport. Because in sport, and among sportsmen, most often the esteem with which your opponents hold you, matters. It’s why you play. Keema and his team mates may have won the game but they didn’t win any friends yesterday. And as 19 year olds I don’t blame them. They’re under high pressure to win. I blame the coaches and administration who allowed that well orchestrated tactic to be executed. Who prepared a team which thought that was okay.
I also wonder about those who don’t see the obvious differences between the Buttler incident and this present one. Context, as I said before, is everything. True enough – Mankadding is part of the laws. It’s there to prevent the batsman stealing runs. This batsman was not doing that, and Keema was lucky that Ngarava was even a few millimetres outside his crease. Killing a man is murder. But killing a man who was going to kill your child, is defensible. If we’re arguing letters of the law, then everyone who kills somebody in self-defence should be on death row too, but that’s not the way the world works. Slavish obedience to legal technicalities is undesirable in a sports field.
Was the dismissal legal? Yes. Unambiguously. Was it within the spirit of the game? Yes, because cricket cannot hold itself up to be a game that is any longer played by gentlemen. There have been enough incidents to stamp out any expectation of that sort of thing. Just ask Stuart Broad. Surely, not walking off when you know you’re out is a clear violation of the spirit of the game. Was it sporting? Not a chance. It was a sucker punch. And there’s no place in sport for that. Is there a place for people who behave like Courtney Walsh? Absolutely. Everyone remembers him. Paul Keema will soon be forgotten.
ballhandling101 
Let’s come at this in a different angle. What if we say that it sets a precedent? The immediate inclination might be to say that if so it would be a dangerous one. But I’d argue that it wasn’t necessarily so. In fact I’d say this was an extremely important and fair precedent that helps restore fairness to the game.
I think a large contributor to this whole brouhaha is the game of cricket itself. I don’t mean the spirit or sportsmanship of this self titled gentleman’s game, rather the game itself. In most of the World’s popular games like football, rugby, basketball, american football, tennis, hockey, boxing, volleyball, table tennis, badminton etc both teams are trying to do the same thing at the same time. Either get the ball in the goal, across the line, in the box or land the knockout punch etc. So unintentional advantages can happen in the same manner from either team or player (like the tennis ball clipping the net and dropping). In cricket it isn’t so. The batting team’s goal is to score runs the bowling team’s goal is to get the batsmen out. Two teams on the field at the same time trying to do 2 completely different things. The closest other game to this situation is Baseball where one team is batting and the other is pitching. I’ll come to baseball later but for the moment let’s get back to cricket.
Your argument is that the West Indian player wasn’t sporting. You assert that he was within the rules but he was knowingly and intentionally unsporting. Now intention I think is the most important word here. Your argument is that the bowler had no intention of bowling the ball and had every intention of getting the non striking batsman out while the batsman had no intention of stealing a run and his bat being out of the crease (or on the line as in this case) was unintentional. Hence you say that the West Indian bowler was unsporting and that the whole thing wasn’t fair.
An actual moving video of the incident can be viewed here
Let’s look at this more closely. First let’s look at the non striker. His role is to somehow help the team score runs. To do this he stands still at the crease with his bat behind the crease. He is crouched with his forward leg out as far as it will go. Both to give him all the momentum he needs to sneak a quick single or turn a one into a two. Great. That’s exactly what he should be doing. Looking to score runs. Now while doing that his bat moves a millemetre out of safety. Correction, he moves his bat a millimetre out of safety. Bats don’t move by themselves. He doesn’t intend it to happen, but it happens. Overall he gains a millimetre which is against the rules, but its unintentional so it’s not unfair (that part is a grey area). Now let’s say that the bowler bowls the ball and they go in for a quick run or a 2, there’s a close runout and he makes his ground by a millimetre. Now he’s won the game with his quick running (and unintentional cheating). Nobody is going to make a fuss because that kind of thing happens all the time and batsmen are expected to do it. Bowlers almost never do it so they are not expected to do it. These unintentional millimetres at U19 become yards in the national team as we saw with Joss Buttler.
In baseball there’s a similar play. It’s called stealing a base. Here’s a video that illustrates the play https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD9DnPMmoKU
The player on a base may intentionally try to steal a base. The pitcher may pitch the ball to the batter or try get the stealer out. All this is expected and hence not controversial at all.
Let’s also look at the physical challenge of this situation and another one as well. The batsman is standing still, crouched, ready to run. All he has to do to stay within the rules and within fairness is; absolutely nothing. Just stay exactly like that until the bowler releases the ball. Now a fast bowler on the other hand has to go through all sorts of contortions just to bowl a legal ball. As all experts agree the human body is not designed to bowl a cricket ball at pace. It takes an extreme amount of physical control to be able to run in fast, jump up, turn your arm over and release the ball at pace all while making sure your foot lands inside the crease. Each time, every time. If by some chance you lose control and unintentionally (unless you’re on a spot fixer’s payroll) land your foot over the line the umpire yells no ball and raises his arm up giving the striker the leeway to try and tonk you over cow corner with no concern for his wicket. God help you if it’s a T20 because he’s got a freebie on the next ball as well. Coming back to the Mankad it takes far greater skill for a bowler to affect a Mankad than for a batsman to avoid it.
There is a problem with the game of cricket and fairness. The game itself isn’t fair. The batsmen get all the leeway and the bowlers get all the restrictions. A long time ago a gentleman didn’t run on a misfield simply because it was ungentlemanly. After all no fielder would misfield intentionally. In those days Mankading would’ve been akin to murder. Because fairness flowed in both directions. However as time went by running on a misfield, running expecting a misfield and indeed running to cause a misfield became intelligent running and we started applauding batsmen for it. All the while forgetting that no fielder ever intentionally misfields. But Mankading remained unfair, unsporting, un gentlemanly etc. The batsman was allowed to do whatever he had to do to score runs (as well he should within the rules of the game) because that is his objective when he is batting. But the bowler was never allowed to do whatever he had to do to get the batsman out (within the laws). This;is unfair. This is unsporting. This is not within the spirit of the game.
This is why I think this wicket sets a very important precedent. Batsmen need to learn that they can be legitimately out at the non strikers end if their bats aren’t behind the line every single ball. Intentionally or not. If cricket is to be sporting and fair then I hope more and more bowlers do this more and more regularly. Then we’d all recognize this for what it is. A bowler executing a physically and mentally demanding action to do the job he’s supposed to do; get the batsman out. All the batsman has to do to make sure he doesn’t is; nothing.
Increase your blog stat using >> RED FEED >> Increase your blog stat using >> RED FEED >>