Indian women cricket team won the third and final ODI match against England at Lord’s Cricket Ground in London on Saturday. Not only did the tournament grabbed headlines for being Jhulan Goswami’s last international match after she announced her retirement, it also sparked the ‘mankad’ controversy.
For the uninitiated, here’s what happened. All-rounder, Deepti Sharma had run-out England’s Charlotte Dean on the non-striker’s end in the fourth ball of the 44th over after noticing her backing up too far up the crease. Sharma’s act left Dean in tears after the announcement of England losing the game.
Deepti Sharma’s run-out has invited a debate on allegedly violating the ‘spirit of cricket’. Despite following the rules and repeated warning Dean, Sharma has been facing backlash on social media, especially by English cricketers of the male gender.
Her run-out has divided cricket fraternity and fans with some calling it a ‘mankad’ act even when it was performed within the law. However, some Twitter users led their support to the Indian cricketer.
Watch the video of run-out here:
Here’s how netizens are supporting Deepti Sharma:
A Twitter user shared that there should have been a warning first before the run-out.
For the ones, who are thinking the same, read the following tweet:
Meanwhile, Deepti Sharma also clarified that the team had, in fact, warned Dean several times before that run-out.
“That was our plan because she (Dean) was repeatedly doing it (backing up) and we had warned them too. We just followed the rules,” Deepti told the reporters. “We had also informed the umpires. But still she was right there so there wasn’t much we could do. We did everything according to the rules and guidelines,” she added.
The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), the lawmaker of cricket, has since issued a statement clarifying their stance on the run-out, NDTV reported.
“MCC this year announced amendments to the laws of cricket to move being run out at the non-striker’s end, from law 41 unfair play, to law 38 run out,” the MCC stated.
“MCC’s message to non-strikers continues to be to remain in their ground until they have seen the ball leave the bowler’s hand. Then dismissals, such as the one seen yesterday, cannot happen,” an excerpt of the statement reads.
“Whilst yesterday was indeed an unusual end to an exciting match, it was properly officiated and should not be considered as anything more,” it added.
What does mankading mean? You ask.
Reportedly, ‘mankading’ is a fair and legal act in cricket, which late Australian captain Don Bradman himself believed in.
The term was coined in 1947 named after legendary former Indian cricketer Vinoo Mankad. He had run-out Australia’s Bill Brown at the non-striker’s end before releasing the ball, which again is just a run-out since the batter is taking unfair advantage by backing up too far, especially when tight run outs are matter of centimetres.
And yet every time a batter is run out in this manner, the spirit police of the gentlemen’s sport come crawling out of their mancaves to assert how ‘Mankading’ violates the ethics of the game. So, imagine if a batter hits one straight to still and still refuses to walk, would that be then called ‘Broading’? If a batter goes to the media crying about facing too many bouncers from an Indian fast bowler, would that be called ‘Andersoning’? No, right?
Broad and Anderson, despite being colossal cry babies are legends of the sport and reducing them to their lowest moments on their respective careers would be disrespectful to what they have achieved over decades. So why should we continue calling a run-out “Mankading”, when Vinoo Mankad was a veteran of 44 Tests with 5 centuries and a 231 to his name? Doesn’t seem fair, does it?