LOC: Line of Controversy

Ashwin: How’s the Jos?

Jos: Why (did you do this) sir?!

Barely after tensions had somewhat reduced at the LOC (Line of Control - between India and Pakistan), India came in the midst of another LOC conflict: at the bowler's Line of Cricket.

All this, courtesy a certain Ravichandran Ashwin, who decided to Mankad Jos Buttler, in the most controversial circumstances.

What followed, was an almost clear split, between supporters and critics of Ashiwn’s act, in the cricketing world. From Rahul Dravid to Shane Warne to Harsha Bhogle to Ben Stokes, everyone had their take on this.

While I do not have the pedigreed credentials of the above-mentioned luminaries, given that this blog is my space, I would like to air my view out here (so what, if no one, including me, would lose any sleep if I do not say anything on this!):

Before coming to any conclusion, it would be pertinent to note, that any such instance earlier in the history of cricket, has always been accompanied by the aggrieved party (Mankad’ed non-striker) never being happy about the way things panned out.

Quite evidently, being Mankaded has never been a common or acceptable mode of dismissal anyway. 

However, it is also important to consider that the rule about effecting such a dismissal has changed. 

From the hitherto almost-mandatory as-a-rule warning to be given to the backing up non-striker, the rule has now given the liberty to the bowler to Mankad someone without any warning.

Therefore, Ashwin never broke any rule by his act. What he did break, apart from Jos Buttler’s heart, was probably the perception (and hope) that bowlers can never be pre-emptive in Mankading batsmen.

It is like a country attacking another, when the latter is erroneously presumptuous about the no-first-use policy of the former. (No no no, I ain’t naming anyone, nor drawing any corollaries! It is only your mind which picked up the obvious names of both the countries in this example!)

All said and done, though, what is debatable, is this:
Was Ashwin being smart enough in waiting for Buttler to be out of his crease or was he too manipulative and unfair in picking the right moment to do a Mankad?

The change in the rules has come in place because batsmen were being too cheeky. Far too many non-strikers have, on far too many occasions, gained the extra and undue advantage of backing out of their crease even before the bowler has “loaded” in his delivery mode. This leads to the non-striker gaining those vital 2-3 seconds of extra ground and extra time, which can prove to be the difference between making or not making the run.

It is to remove this unfair play, that the rule would have been amended. And in this specific instance, to be fair to be Buttler, there was no intention to gain time or ground by backing out, because although he was only technically out of his crease, there was no intention there to get an extra advantage of lesser time or distance to be covered.

It is due to this, that all the spirit of cricket talk comes in.

So, in this context, he might seem hard done by, but then one must also think through another similar scenario:

Imagine a batsman steps out of his crease without any intention of taking a run but due to any inadvertent reason is out of his crease (before the ball is dead) and the wicketkeeper collects the ball and takes off the bails. Despite no intention of gaining any advantage or any extra run, isn’t the batsman ruled out then too?

Have we not seen VVS Laxman get run out this way?

The foot could be in mid-air for precisely that moment, as the ‘keeper can (and has) swiftly taken the bails off just then.

If that is out, and without any breach, I see no reason how or why this should be treated any differently.

Mankading or no Mankading, I guess we might see no (bats)man kidding around even while being at the non-striker’s end anymore!