Ambiguities are cracks through which the spirit of the game shines

The essential difference between what we shall call ‘classical’ cricket an

The essential difference between what we shall call ‘classical’ cricket and the IPL is that unwritten rules are sometimes more important than the written laws of the game in the former. The term ‘spirit of the game’, however, is now seen as antiquated despite its inclusion in the preamble to the laws. In the modern game, as exemplified by the IPL, ‘spirit of the game’ is almost a term of abuse.

Running out the non-striker backing up (an act formerly known as ‘mankading’) has been removed from Law 41 on ‘unfair play’ and moved to Law 38 on run outs. When huge sums of money are involved and personal fortunes are at stake, ambiguities in the laws — the cracks through which the spirit of the game shines — can cause heartburn.

The ‘mankading’ effected by Ravichandran Ashwin in IPL’s past probably hastened the change in the emphasis (the new code is effective from October). It is assumed that his walking off ‘retired out’ to allow a specialist hitter to come in for the last few deliveries for Rajasthan Royals against Lucknow Super Giants will lead to a similar change.

But that law — on batsman retiring — has been around for decades. To ‘retire out’ is a legitimate option and neither Ashwin nor the IPL invented it.

As early as in the 1944-45 home season, Vijay Merchant ‘retired’ on getting to a double century against the Services (thus voluntarily ending a 382-run stand with Vijay Hazare who remained unbeaten on 200).

Nearly three years later, the law was tweaked so a batsman who did not resume his innings was declared ‘out’ for the purposes of calculating averages. Law 2.9 is clear on this.

Touring teams who play just one or two First Class matches ahead of a Test series often recall batsmen who have scored runs to give others a chance. This is standard practice.