Andrew Alderson: Cricket's law changes swing in bowlers' favour

The West Indies under-19 side advanced to the 2016 semifinals on a last wicket Mankad.

OPINION

Any cricketer has witnessed one of these sly recidivists in action; indeed many of us have been guilty ourselves.

I refer to batters who creep beyond the non-striker's popping crease in pursuit of free real estate, while watching bowlers leap into their delivery stride. Batters employ this strategy safe in the knowledge that momentum, apathy or fear of reprisal generally prevents the bowler stopping to run them out.

Well, think again.

Bowlers are rising up in solidarity. They have had a gutsful of batters stealing a discount on runs. Mankad-ing, an art that lurked in the shadows until yesterday, has been brought into a destigmatised light by the Marylebone Cricket Club, custodians of the game's laws.

Although legal it was under the 'unfair play' law of the rule book. Now it is considered a 'run out' and therefore fair play.

Indian all-rounder Mulvantrai Himmatlal "Vinoo" Mankad's name has been associated, often infamously, with the act. He ran out Australian opener Bill Brown in that fashion during the drawn second test at Sydney in 1947. Now Mankad can officially be considered a pioneer.

Fans can postulate it is "not the done thing" and "there is no skill involved". Let's flip that around. Why should a batter get an advantage? Where's the skill in gaining ground without resistance? Why should a bowler have to endure such a cricketing tax?

The solution is simple. Only back-up as far as you can safely get your bat back in the crease if the bowler pulls a swifty.

Some might argue bowlers have hijacked the laws committee this year.

Batters have also been prevented from crossing to different ends as a catch is taken. Some might shrug their shoulders to such a tweak, applying an "if it ain't broke" philosophy. But, consider this. Why should a bowler be forced to bowl the next ball to a more experienced batter when, by taking a wicket, they've surely earned the right to test the freshest face at the crease?

Now, for the hat-trick.

Wide calls will "apply to where the batter is standing, where the striker has stood at any point since the bowler began their run-up, and which would also have passed wide of the striker in a normal batting position".

Translated from legalese, that means batters can still twinkle-toe around the crease as a means of distraction before the point of delivery, but they'll be judged on everywhere they move rather than where they started at the top of a bowler's run.

The trickiest new law to police could be the ban on the age-old use of saliva to help shine, or at least further weaponise, 156 grams of leather. The practice seems relatively tame when you consider one team of recent vintage – here's looking at you, Australia - was prepared to nip to their local hardware store to get sandpaper for the purpose.

However, in the age of the Covid pandemic, the thought of 11 players and two umpires tossing a ball about with countless drool samples massaged into the leather hardly strikes as health department best practice.