Did anyone see the scandalous piece of blatant cheating (and certainly against the spirit of any game) yesterday in the Hampshire vs Worcester game of Sky last night. With nine wickets down, in an attempt to keep the strike (and protect the number 11), the Hampshire batsman (an Australian) run a two by turning a good eight feet short at the non-striker's end. The result was one run (deducting a run for the short run), but he kept the strike.

The rules do apparently cover the running of delierate short runs, but will this Australian (who really shouldn't be learning his trade in English county cricket if you ask me) be punished at all? Of course not. If this had been a Pakistani the papers would have been full of it.

Now this sounds very interesting... and I'm surprised it's taken this long to surface: it's the sort of delightful innovation I'd have expected from the ever innovative Dermott Reeve.

If the guy simply changed his mind over the run and went back to take the strike that's fair enough.... and if he gets credited a run because the batsmen crossed so much the better: it's not the same as putting you bat down 6" short and hoping the umpire doesn't notice... turning way, way short is not an attempt to deceive anyone.... so I've no real issue with it.

Why not? This could become a standard feature of pyjama cricket if the coaches take note: it would make life a LOT more interesting towards the end of an innings, stopping dead the practice of the fielding side allowing the senior batsman an easy single.... but increasing the fielding side's chances no end as the batting partners would be making tougher calls as to whether they could make two full runs or needed to just cross and return to their own ends.

Excellent news: beats any innovation from the ICC :-)

Coming from you Rachael (one who always talks about the spirit of cricket) I know you are having me on. This could as easily be adopted in Test cricket, in that case, and turn the end of an innings to complete farce.

Anyway, Law 18.4a covers this piece of 'innovation'. It is not clever, it is simply cheating. A warning should have been given and any subsequent transgression would be penalised by awarding no runs.

In fact, I've just read your edit and seen you are not joking. It is not trying to deceive anyone then? Running a single and keeping the strike? Very interesting that someone could even try to defend this. Anyway, as I said above, the laws prohibit this. So end of chat.

It cannot become a "standard feature" of any cricket because it is expressly disallowed by the Laws. I think even the first transgression is penalised by deducting any runs scored off that delivery. The second transgression in the same innings leads to five penalty runs being awarded to the fielding side, according to Law 18.5.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Does the law explicitly state that you can't change your mind over a run when the batsmen have crossed?

If it were allowed.. then in Test cricket I'd be unsure of it.... batsmen working with the tail can lead to some facinating cricket. That said... I think it would be more interesting if the batsmen were looking to cross and return rather than to simply hold their ground until the 5th ball of the over!

So it seems the umpires did not feel it was a deliberate short run then?

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Maybe they didn't know the laws Yasser! It was clearly deliberate (nothing to do with batsmen changing their minds like Rachael wants to argue).

PS: It would appaer that my 2000 Wisden that I grabbed randomnly has laws that have since changed (before the introduction of five point penalties for unfair sportmanship and also 18.2).

Irrespective of this case... can a batsman not change his mind if he decides he'd rather carry on facing strike than carry on running? Batsmen routinely set off and turn back... though most commonly before they cross: so long as they don't try and claim a run that's not really against the spirit of the game.

Of course.. in that case... the umpire shouldn't be awarding ANY runs.

In theory, of course he can. In practice, he would be daft to run 17 yards and then decide he doesn't fancy running the remaining 2 or 3 and turn back to scamper another 17....

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Of course they can change their mind Rachael. But, that is not the point of this post. In that example the batsman would presumably turn without grounding their bat in the usual manner.