Non-Striker Run-Out Law Updated by MCC Post Adam Zampa Confusion

The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has modified the non-striker run-out law to “make things clearer.”

There is always controversy surrounding mankading. A similar incident occurred earlier in the Big Bash League (BBL) game between the Melbourne Stars and Melbourne Renegades.

Tom Rogers got run-out after he was found short of his crease at the non-striker’s end by Adam Zampa. The latter dislodged the bails after pulling out of his bowling action when he had almost released the ball.

However, the third umpire gave the decision against Zampa, and Rogers survived.

But why wasn’t he given out when he wasn’t in his crease?

The reason was rather simple, but many didn’t know it at that point. Evidently, in order to run out a batsman, the bowler must remove the bails before reaching the point at which he or she “would normally have been expected to release the ball.”

The MCC quickly acknowledged that the umpires’ judgment was correct. Furthermore, they did accept that the previous law had some “ambiguity in the wording which could lead to confusion.”

The latest Law 38.3.2 states: “Even if the non-striker had left his/her ground before the instant at which the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, once the bowler has reached that point, it is no longer possible for the bowler to run out the non-striker under this Law.”

The MCC law-making body further explains in a subsequent statement:

“We acknowledge that while this Law has generally been understood well by players and umpires, there is ambiguity in the wording which could lead to confusion. MCC has therefore moved to change the wording of Law 38.3 to deliver better clarity.

“The current wording led some to think that if the non-striker left his/her ground before the expected moment of release, then the Run out could happen at any moment, even after the bowler had gone through the bowling action. That was never the intention of this Law, nor the way it was ever interpreted by MCC.

“It is important to note that this does not change the way the Law should be interpreted – it has been interpreted that way for the past six years, without much misunderstanding. However, the intention is that this will make things clearer.”

Well, I can’t just give one opinion. Different people have their perspectives. There’s even a dispute between former cricketers regarding this non-striker run-out law.

But anyway, the bowlers have the complete right to dismiss the batsman if they find them short of their crease, according to the rules. But remember, it has to be “before the bowler goes through the bowling action.”

Mankading has become a lot more common now. Ravichandran Ashwin is known quite well for this. And recently, Zaib-un-Nisa did the same against Rwanda in the ICC Under-19 Women’s T20 World Cup.

Contrarily, we also have incidents where the bowling team took back their appeal for Mankad. The most recent example is from the 1st ODI between India and Sri Lanka. Rohit Sharma withdrew the run-out appeal against Shanaka after Shami had run him out at the bowling end.

What do you think about this rule? Is the law fair with batsmen, or are the bowlers being given an advantage?