'Yesterday's incident could have been ruled out or not out' – MCC weighs in on 'Mankad' debate

Ashwin, representing Kings XI Punjab, dismissed Rajasthan Royals’ Buttler by removing the bails at the non-striker’s end just as he was set to deliver a ball. Buttler, who was out of the crease, was adjudged out, ending his innings on 69.

MCC’s Law 41.16 deals with the issue of a non-striker leaving his/her ground early:

If the non-striker is out of his/her ground from the moment the ball comes into play to the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the bowler is permitted to attempt to run him/her out. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one in the over.

If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible.

According to MCC, the dismissal of Buttler could have been adjudged out or not out, subject to interpretation of when Ashwin would have been expected to release the ball.

“Yesterday’s incident could have been ruled out or not out,” said MCC, “depending on how ‘the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball’ is interpreted.

“Some feel that Ashwin delayed his action to allow Buttler the chance to leave his ground and that Buttler was in his ground when he expected the ball to be released. If it was a deliberate delay, that would be unfair and against the Spirit of Cricket. Ashwin claims this not to be the case.

“The TV umpire had to make a decision and, under the Law (and indeed ICC’s interpretation of them, which clarifies the expected moment of release as when the arm reaches its highest point), it was understandable how he opted to give Buttler out.”