Run outs at the non-striker's end: Finding a middle ground

Has there been a subject as polarizing as the run out of a non-striker before the delivery of the cricket ball among players, pundits and enthusiasts of the game of cricket in recent times? With each passing day, people's stances for and against law 38.3 of the MCC rule book are turning out to be more and more radical, so much so that it feels like a boiling point is being reached.

There have been several attempts to de-stigmatize the mode of dismissal in the recent past, via both words and actions. While there have been several instances of the dismissal in the past, it wasn’t until Ravichandran Ashwin stopped in his tracks and proceeded to run out Jos Buttler in a game between Kings XI Punjab (now Punjab Kings) and the Rajasthan Royals in the 2019 Indian Premier League that the discourse over the dismissal became mainstream.

Buttler's run-out in that game caused a major uproar among certain sets of audiences and ignited a debate on social media that continues to this date. Some were vehemently against it, siding with the England wicketkeeper, while others backed Ashwin’s actions to the hilt. Since then, there have been plenty of instances in which bowlers have caught non-strikers short before delivering the cricket ball, but not without the incident being engulfed in controversy, both on and off social media.

In October last year, the MCC decided to move the act of running the non-striker out from Law 41 (Unfair Play) to Law 38 (Run out). Fraser Stewart, the laws manager of the MCC, in an interview with The Times, had said:

“The bowler is always painted as the villain but it is a legitimate way to dismiss someone and it is the non-striker who is stealing the ground. It is legitimate, it is a run out, and therefore it should live in the run out section of the laws.”

What does the new law state?

Before we dig deep into it, let’s have a look at what Law 38.3 states. It 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.”

38.3.2 states:

“If the ball is not delivered and there is an appeal, the umpire shall make his/her decision on the run out. If it is not out, he/she shall call and signal dead ball as soon as possible. The ball shall not count as one in the over.”

38.3.3 reads as follows:

“If the ball is delivered and there is an appeal, the umpire shall make his/her decision on the run out. If the non-striker is not dismissed, the ball remains in play and Law 21.6 (Bowler breaking wicket in delivering ball) shall apply. If the non-striker is dismissed, the ball shall not count as one in the over.”

The conclusion derived from it is quite simple. Leaving the crease at the non-striker’s end before the bowler delivers the ball comes at a price for a batter, a major one at that. So, what’s stopping a certain set of people, cricketers in particular, from embracing the rule?

As per England fast bowler Stuart Broad’s social media post after the announcement of the legitimation of the dismissal by the MCC a year ago, it is down to the skill of a bowler to dismiss a batter. He also wrote that he considered the run-out of the non-striker pre-delivery unfair and would not consider going through with it, something that he maintains to this date.

So the Mankad is no longer unfair & is now a legitimate dismissal.

Hasn’t it always been a legitimate dismissal & whether it is unfair is subjective?

I think it is unfair & wouldn’t consider it, as IMO, dismissing a batter is about skill & the Mankad requires zero skill. twitter.com/SkyCricket/sta…

Sri Lankan pacer Achini Kulasuriya, after the 2022 Women’s Asia Cup match against Pakistan, was asked in an interview the reason behind her not going through with the run-out in the last over of the match. Aliya Riaz left her crease well before the second delivery was bowled. She answered:

“I didn’t try to attempt the run out because I just wanted to maintain the spirit of this great game of cricket. Yes, it was a crucial moment and the match could have gone either way. But I just keep faith in my ability. I kept focusing on the striker. As a fast bowler, it’s not easy to do that. It’s also something that makes me tired.”

Rohit Sharma, captain of the India Men’s cricket team, clarified their decision to withdraw an appeal for the run-out of Dasun Shanaka at the non-striker’s end in the post-match presentation after the 1st ODI against Sri Lanka last week. He said that they didn’t want to get Shanaka out like that. They wanted to get him out the way they thought that they’ll get him out.

Rohit Sharma and Dasun Shanaka after the 1st ODI between India and Sri Lanka last week. [PC: myKhel]

While all of the above statements were debatable, the sentiment behind it was clear – all the above cricketers favor or have favored a contest between bat and ball to dismiss a batter. And that is exactly what the majority of people who are not in favor of the run out feel, it’s just that they fail to express it in the right manner, resorting to rather equivocal terminologies such as ‘fair play’ and ‘spirit of cricket’ to justify their stance on it. The delivery of the cricket ball makes the difference between a run-out at the non-striker’s end and every other form of dismissal for them.

Going back to Broad’s tweet, the run-out of the non-striker does require skill, contrary to what he stated. It takes tremendous presence of mind to pause mid-way through the delivery stride and break the wicket. It also requires observatory skills to notice the batters guilty of leaving their crease early.

Deepti Sharma’s run out of Charlie Dean to help India clinch a three-match ODI series against England last year is an example of the same – Deepti spotted Dean wandering out of her crease while fielding at cover, had a word with her teammates about it. The Indian women’s team then warned her about leaving her crease early, they had a word with the umpires on the same, and eventually, proceeded to go through with the run out and won the contest.

It's not a concrete solution to keep non-strikers in check, though. As per a Twitter thread by renowned sports journalist Peter Della Penna, Dean strayed out of her crease a total of 72 times before being run out on the 73rd occasion. This serves as an example of the number of times a batter can tend to leave their crease in an entire innings and get away with it. That, in turn, can have a major effect on a cricket match in terms of runs being taken between the wickets — non-strikers are likely to complete more runs with a head start.

Moreover, while it serves as a wicket for the fielding team, the process of going through the run out can take a toll on the concentration of the bowler in the longer run, especially for a fast bowler. We haven’t seen non-strikers use it to their advantage yet, but with the advent of ingenious tactics in the sport, it won’t be long before we see something brewed up on its lines.

Is there a middle ground to serve the purpose of keeping non-strikers in the crease before the delivery?

Yes, there is. Law 41.16 in the MCC rule book has a similar function to law 38.3 i.e. it ensures that batters remain in their crease before the bowler runs in. It states: “It is unfair for the batters to attempt to steal a run during the bowler’s run-up. Unless the bowler attempts to run out the non-striker (Law 38.3), the umpire shall:

- Call and signal Dead ball as soon as the batters cross in such an attempt.

- Inform the other umpire of the reason for this action.

The bowler’s end umpire shall then:

- Return the batters to their original ends and disallow the attempted run.

- Award 5 Penalty runs to the fielding side.

- Award any other 5-run Penalty that is applicable.

- Inform the batters, the captain of the fielding side and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side, of the reason for this action.”

Now, the prospect of both batters stealing a run with the bowler running in is a bit far-fetched. But this law can be put to use to keep non-strikers in check.

Technically, a non-striker straying out of their crease before the ball is bowled can be classified as trying to steal a run, stealing some ground in the attempt of a run, that is. A minor amendment to the law, classifying the act of leaving the crease at the non-strikers' end before the delivery as an attempt to steal a run only off deliveries batters score runs, will certainly be of optimum value in reaching a middle ground and have a decisive impact on the discourse.

The TV umpire, who takes the calls over front-foot no-balls, can be assigned the responsibility of checking whether the non-striker has left their crease before the expected release point of the delivery. The third umpire can then communicate with the on-field umpires if the non-striker is found guilty of it, following which the on-field umpires can deem the ball to be dead and impose the aforementioned penalty on the batting team.

That way, bowlers won’t necessarily require aborting their run-up to attempt a run out and keep non-strikers within check - they can get on with their primary job smoothly. Batters will be 10 times more cautious than they are at present, for they will be under strict vigilance. Imagine the consequences of straying out of the crease on as many occasions as Dean did before the ball being bowled with such a rule in place!

It will also provide an evenness to the consequences of a bowler breaching the crease in his or her delivery stride to a batter doing the same. A batter clearing the ropes, getting nothing for it, and their team going behind by 5 runs to go with it does sound quite akin to a bowler taking a wicket off a no-ball due to excess fielders placed in a particular area of the field.

Conclusion

Under the current regulations, non-strikers can stray out of the crease at their own peril. However, an amendment to Law 41.16 of the manner mentioned above will almost certainly mandate batters from staying in their crease until the bowler’s expected release. For the team’s cause, at that. Cricketers who prefer a bat and ball contest to pick up a wicket will have their way, and the purpose of restricting the non-striker to their crease will be served to good effect.