If there's 'Mankaading' then there's 'Buttlering'

'Buttlering' gives a batsman an edge of a couple of yards while a bowler who errs by a fraction of an inch is no-balled.

These days batsmen who get out don’t always walk back to the pavilion.  No, I am not talking about batsmen who having snicked a ball to the keeper pretending they have not, hoping that the umpire would have missed it.  The rules have changed and sometimes the umpires ‘go upstairs’ to see if the delivery was legit. They let the cameras decide if the bowler has overstepped and therefore delivered a ‘no ball’, in which case the batsman stays.

What this means is that a fraction of an inch is all it takes for a wicket taking delivery to be penalized with a run to the opposition.   It’s all good.  There’s a popping crease marked on the wicket for a reason. 

Still, it appears that the laws and traditions are very strict for the bowler but go easy on the batsmen and nothing shows this up better than what might be called ‘Buttlering’.

During the 5^th ODI between England and Sri Lanka Jos Buttler, the English batsman was declared out after Sri Lankan spinner Sachitra Senanayake ‘Mankaaded’ him; i.e. whipped the bails off at the non-striker’s end before he got into his delivery stride after finding Buttler out of the crease.  Ravi Bopara, with whom Buttler put together a partnership that almost brought England a victory in the 4^th ODI said ‘it was the done thing’.  The ‘done thing’, let’s call it ‘Buttlering’ turned some twenty plus singles into ‘twos’ in that 4^th ODI.  ‘Buttlering’ did not go unnoticed. Warnings were issued.  Buttlering in the 5^th ODI prompted further warnings and was put to a stop by Sachitra ‘Mankaading’ Jos. 

Now since batsmen often get ‘run out by a whisker’, an advantage of even an inch or two can make a massive difference.  While a fraction ‘off’ can deny a bowler a wicket because it would be called a ‘no ball’, a fraction ‘extra’ secures safety for a batsman.  In the former case, the bowler is penalized and in the latter the batsman is rewarded.  Is this cricket, as the saying goes? Sadly, it is.

That’s a batsman vs bowler affair.  But there’s inconsistency for batsmen too.  If a lead of a few feet at the beginning of a run is fair (i.e. ‘the done thing’), why should a few inches short in the event of a batsman not touching the crease when turning for a second run be called ‘one short’ by the umpire? 

The umpire is alert to where the bowler’s foot lands when he delivers. That’s part of his job. The umpire is not required to check if the non-striker is behind the crease (i.e. either a foot or the grounded bat) at the same moment.  It can’t be too difficult to write something into the law to deter Buttlering, which is nothing but blatant gamesmanship and a deliberate abuse of a lacuna in the law.  The umpire can take note and if a single (or two or three) is taken, declare ‘one short’. 

As things stand, however, the bowler gets shortchanged while the batsman has the opportunity to steal a few coins.  They add up, as the 4^th ODI clearly showed.  If Buttlering is sanctioned then checking for no-balls after a wicket is taken must be done away with.  Indeed, if the transgression is similar (in length) to done-thing-length or Buttler-Length, then no-ball should not be called.  If someone really wants clarity, consistency and hard line rules, then an adjustment should be made to the length of the track, say 24 yards instead of 22.  Don’t like it?  Well then, let’s not treat Buttlering in international cricket as though it was something that happens in the village greens where coconut tree is a fielder and a ‘six’ into the grumpy neighbor’s garden is ‘out’. 

Technology has invaded cricket.  Rules have been fine-tuned.  Players are required to show greater degrees of professionalism.  Buttlerism persists though and is played down and even applauded by fellow cheats like Ravi Bopara while Mankaading is booed. 

Something is wrong here and the ICC must do what’s necessary to correct it. 

P.S. For an analogy in politics please read 'Doing the done thing'

Read more

Doing the ‘done thing’

Sachithra Senanayake was booed each time he came up to bowl, each time he touched the ball.  This is after he ‘Mankaded’ Jos Buttler.  A lot has been said and written about the incident.  There has been self-righteous indignation, there’s been ‘titting-for-tatting’ arguments and there has been sober reference to ICC laws. 

Ravi Bopara said ‘It is definitely not within the spirit of the game. I wouldn’t say Jos was stealing yards, he was just casually leaving the crease. It is just the done thing.’  He adds, ‘if that’s the way Mathews and Sri Lanka want to play their cricket then it’s up to them; hopefully we don’t step to that level.’

Oh! Wow!

Now Bopara and Buttler had almost brought England a hard-to-imagine win in the 4^th ODI.  There were some 20 plus occasions when ones were converted into twos.  ‘Good running,’ the commentators said.  They weren’t watching Buttler doing the ‘done thing’ though. However, the only difference between this ‘done thing’ and running in a manner that compels the umpire to signal ‘one short’ is that the former happens at delivery point and the latter post-delivery and post-stroke.  If one is the ‘done thing’ then the other is too. 

According to Bopara, though, stepping out early is morally superior to being punished for doing so after being warned more than once.  Should we not say ‘fiddlesticks!’? 

The last word on the issue, to my mind, came from my colleague Callistus Davy: ‘It is not something that players should sort out. It’s for the umpires to decide.’  True.  The ‘spirit of the game,’ frequently alluded to with reference to this incident is way too subjective to come to any conclusion one way or another.  ‘Laws’ are more robust and they are pretty clear on this matter.  If you are deliberately taking cover under ‘spirit of the game’ to steal a few singles and with it a game, that’s the worst kind of violation of this ‘spirit of the game’. 

The warning should have come from the umpire, not the players.  The umpire watched for no-balls and is required to ascertain if a run has been completed.  People get run out by fractions of an inch and therefore gaining a couple of yards by ‘doing the done thing’ is cheating.  What Bopara is therefore saying is ‘We cheat and that’s the “done thing” as far as England is concerned’.  In this instance Senanayake, by warning, was being kind.  Rightfully, though, Sri Lanka need not refer to the warning to buttress justification.  Mankaading is legal.  That’s it.

The ‘booing point’ however is that Senanayake’s action was brought into question before the final game began.  He was the most successful Sri Lankan bowler in the series. His action has been cleared by many on many occasions.  This of course doesn’t mean that he cannot or would never again err, but the timing of the complaint is significant.  It coincides with England facing a decider. 

Is this cricket?  Is it politics (as usual)?  Here’s an analogy. Sri Lankan security forces were about to vanquish the LTTE in the first few months of 2009.  ‘War crimes!’ was the word for ‘Mankaading’ in that context.  ‘Not in the spirit of the game’, was the argument, the relevant reference being the Geneva Convention, never mind that the said document is like used toilet paper if the USA and its allies (the UK included) are involved.  That match was won, but the Bopara-like whines didn’t stop.  In that instance, apart from ‘tokenist’ objection to LTTE’s preferred methodologies of ‘playing the game,’ there was largely silence on what the other side was doing.  Like holding some 300,000 civilians hostage, for example.  That was the equivalent of doing Buttler’s ‘done thing’.  Calling a probe on bowling action, then, is also the ‘done thing’, as ‘done’ as trying to steal a single and as ‘done’ as being horrified when the thief is caught napping. 

One thing is certain.  The call to hang Sachithra Senanayake will continue.  There are Navi Pillays in the cricketing world too, after all.  Obamas and Camerons too.    It’s called ‘doing the done thing’.  That’s polite-speak for getting away with cheating and what better way than to pass the cheat-buck back to the enemy, huh?  

Read more