On the Spirit Of Cricket

There's been quite a lot of discussion about the Sprit Of Cricket recently, specifically in relation to India and whether certain unusual modes of dismissal should have been upheld.

My take on this is simple - the Spirit of Cricket should apply as an overriding factor when the mode of dismissal involved is a "non-cricketing" one, ie. not especially relevant to the fundamental contest between bat and ball, and trying to stop the opposition batsman scoring runs.

In having said this, let's look at three incidents in the last year, all involving India (and M.S. Dhoni in particular).

1. Ian Bell, Trent Bridge, 2nd Test vs England. In this case, the appeal was and should have been withdrawn. Ian Bell was, in brief, being a dozy twit, wandering at random out of his crease at the end of the session to have a chat with his partner having believed that Praveen Kumar had failed to stop the ball touching the boundary. In this case, however, he was not trying to gain any advantage, or take a run, just being a bit lazy. It was not part of the contest between bat and ball, and in many senses outside cricket. The only person who seemed to think the ball wasn't dead was Dhoni. In that case, in my opinion the Spirit of Cricket should apply, and the appeal withdrawn. It's simply not part of cricket to be giving those out.
2. Lahiru Thirimanne, Brisbane, ODI vs Sri Lanka. This was out. I'm not entirely sure why mankadding has such a bad name, but based on the comments of Mahela Jayawardene and Michael Clarke - two of the more lenient, "nicer" captains in world cricket (if you want proof, have a look at the discussion they had when Clarke correctly claimed a low catch off Mahela during the Aus vs SL series last year) - it does. You can't steal an advantage by shortening the length of the pitch before the bowler has bowled! It's as simple as that. Now, the reason that it is etiquette (ie. S.o.Cricket) to warn the batsman is because it can be difficult to guess when the bowler is entering his action, and because it can be tricky to judge exactly when to time your leaving of the crease when you're generally also focussed on what happens down the other end (so you can be ready to run on an instant, for example). It also attempts to avoid the unseemly behaviour of bowlers faking their action to run someone out, which is not cool. But given that Ashwin, apparently, had warned the batsman...
3. David Hussey, Sydney, ODI vs India. I would direct you to this post on A Cricket View as to why this was not out obstructing the field, and  under the law it was probably fair enough. But in my opinion it was still out under the handling the ball rule, Law 33. The question then becomes whether the batsman was avoiding injury. In my opinion, no. You cannot use your hand to touch the ball in cricket. As simple as that.

 Law 33 (Handled the ball)

1. Out Handled the ball
   (a) Either batsman is out Handled the ball if he wilfully touches the ball while in play with a hand or hands not holding the bat unless he does so with the consent of a fielder.
   (b) Either batsman is out under this Law if, while the ball is in play, and without the consent of a fielder, he uses his hand or hands not holding the bat to return the ball to any fielder.
   
   2. Not out Handled the ball
   Notwithstanding 1(a) above, a batsman will not be out under this Law if he handles the ball to avoid injury.