Mankad or Run Out? Deepti Sharma, Charlie Dean and Cricket's Spirit

Timeline

1. Nov 18, 1947Vinoo Mankad warns Bill Brown for backing up, then runs him out in India's tour match against an Australian XI in Sydney.
2. Dec 1947Mankad runs Brown out the same way in the second Test in Sydney.
3. Mar 25, 2019R Ashwin runs out Jos Buttler at the non-striker's end in an IPL match in Jaipur.
4. Mar 26–27, 2019MCC says the dismissal could be judged either way, then its Laws manager says the pause was too long and not within the spirit of the game.
5. Mar 8, 2022MCC announces that running out the non-striker will move from Law 41 (Unfair play) to Law 38 (Run out) from Oct. 1.
6. Sep 20, 2022The ICC adopts the change in its Playing Conditions from Oct. 1.
7. Sep 24, 2022Deepti Sharma runs out Charlie Dean to finish the third women's ODI at Lord's; India win by 16 runs.
8. Sep 26, 2022Deepti says Dean had been warned; England captain Heather Knight says no warnings were given.
9. Jan 19, 2023After a failed attempt by Adam Zampa in the Big Bash, MCC rewrites Law 38.3 to make clear when the run-out is no longer possible.

The ethical issues

• Whether a legal dismissal can still breach the spirit of the game.
• Whether bowlers owe batters a warning that the Laws do not require.
• Who carries the duty: the non-striker who gains ground early or the bowler who exploits it.
• Whether lawmakers can change a sport's culture by relocating a rule.
• Naming a contested practice after an individual player.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Bowlers and fielding sides	Using every legal means to prevent batters gaining unfair ground.
Non-striking batters	Running quick singles without being dismissed in a way they see as unsporting.
MCC (Laws custodian)	Clear, enforceable Laws and the preamble on the Spirit of Cricket.
ICC and national boards	Consistent Playing Conditions and the image of international cricket.
Umpires	A Law clear enough to apply at every level.
Spectators and young players	Role models and a shared sense of what fair play means.
The Mankad family	How the name of a celebrated player is remembered.

The case

On September 24, 2022, England needed 17 runs to beat India at Lord’s with one wicket left. Charlie Dean, batting with the last pair, had made 47. As India’s Deepti Sharma ran in to bowl, she stopped in her delivery stride and broke the stumps at her end. Dean was out of her ground, backing up. The third umpire confirmed the run-out, India won by 16 runs and completed a 3–0 series sweep, and Dean threw her bat down in tears as parts of the crowd booed.^[7][13] The dismissal was within the Laws of Cricket. Within days the argument had moved from whether it was legal to whether it was fair, and then to whether India had told the truth about it.

Background

Cricket has long allowed a bowler to run out a non-striking batter who leaves the crease too early, and the dismissal carries the name of India’s Vinoo Mankad. On India’s 1947–48 tour of Australia, in a match against an Australian XI in Sydney, Mankad stopped before delivering, pointed at Bill Brown’s feet well outside the crease and let him return. In his next over Brown was out of his ground again, and Mankad ran him out.^[1] When Mankad did it again in the second Test in Sydney, parts of the Australian press called it against the spirit of the game. Australia’s captain, Don Bradman, defended him, writing that the Laws made clear the non-striker must stay in his ground until the ball has been delivered: “If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out?” Bradman added that Mankad had been “so scrupulously fair that he first of all warned Brown before taking any action.”^[2]

The name stuck, and so did the idea that a bowler should warn a batter first. Vinoo Mankad’s family has been split over the term. His late son Rahul said it was unfair that his father’s name was “dragged into the picture” each time; his widow said Rahul had “fought hard to have the ICC remove the family name” from a legitimate dismissal. A grandson, Harsh, said he considered it “a great honour.”^[12]

The practice returned to the headlines in March 2019, when R Ashwin, captaining Kings XI Punjab in the Indian Premier League, ran out Rajasthan Royals’ Jos Buttler at the non-striker’s end without a warning. Buttler had been dismissed the same way by Sri Lanka’s Sachithra Senanayake in a 2014 one-day international.^[4]

The rules and governance

The Laws of Cricket are written by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), which also publishes the Preamble on the Spirit of Cricket. The International Cricket Council (ICC) adopts the Laws for international matches through its own Playing Conditions. In 2019 the relevant Law was 41.16, “Non-striker leaving his/her ground early,” inside Law 41, “Unfair play.” It allowed the bowler to attempt a run-out if the non-striker was out of the ground “from the moment the ball comes into play to the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball.”^[3] Nothing in the Laws required a warning.

After the Ashwin incident, the MCC said the Law was essential: “Without it, non-strikers could back up at liberty, several yards down the pitch.” It said “it has never been in the Laws that a warning should be given to the non-striker and nor is it against the Spirit of Cricket to run out a non-striker who is seeking to gain an advantage by leaving his/her ground early.” The difficulty, it said, was timing: the decision “could have been ruled out or not out, depending on how ‘the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball’ is interpreted,” and a deliberate delay by the bowler “would be unfair and against the Spirit of Cricket.”^[3] A day later the MCC’s Laws manager, Fraser Stewart, said that after reviewing the footage, “we believe the pause was too long,” that Buttler had been in his ground when he could reasonably have expected the ball to be delivered, and “we don’t think it was in the spirit of the game.” He added that it was also “unfair, and against the Spirit of Cricket, for non-strikers to leave their ground too early.”^[4]

Moving the Law

In March 2022 the MCC announced a new edition of the Laws. The non-striker provision was moved from Law 41 (Unfair play) to Law 38 (Run out), with its wording unchanged. “The bowler is always painted as the villain but it is a legitimate way to dismiss someone and it is the non-striker who is stealing the ground,” Stewart said. “It is legitimate, it is a run-out and therefore it should live in the run-out section of the laws.”^[5] On September 20, 2022, the ICC announced that its Playing Conditions would “follow the Laws in moving this method of effecting a Run out from the ‘Unfair Play’ section to the ‘Run out’ section” from October 1, alongside changes such as a permanent ban on using saliva to shine the ball.^[6]

Lord’s, September 2022

Four days later came the Lord’s finish, a week before the new Laws took effect. The match was also the farewell international of India’s long-serving fast bowler Jhulan Goswami.^[9] India’s captain, Harmanpreet Kaur, defended Deepti: “It is part of the game. I don’t think we have done anything new, and it is in the rules. I think it shows awareness of what the batters are doing and I will back my players.” England, without their injured captain Heather Knight, were visibly aggrieved; the BBC described the dismissal as “within the laws of the game but seen by many as against the spirit of cricket.”^[7]

The MCC issued a statement the next day. It said the Law was clear and that “Cricket is a broad church and the spirit by which it is played is no different.” It acknowledged that “where one person sees the bowler as breaching the Spirit in such examples, another will point at the non-striker gaining an unfair advantage by leaving their ground early,” and repeated its advice that non-strikers stay in their ground until they see the ball leave the bowler’s hand. The match, it said, “was properly officiated and should not be considered as anything more.”^[8]

The dispute over warnings

On India’s return to Kolkata on September 26, Deepti told reporters: “It was our plan because she repeatedly… we had warned her also. We did it according to the rules and guidelines,” adding that India had told the umpires.^[9] Her account differed from Harmanpreet’s after the match, when the captain said she had not been aware Deepti was preparing the run-out and credited the bowler’s awareness.^[9] Knight replied on Twitter the same day: “The game is over, Charlie was dismissed legitimately. India were deserved winners of the match and the series. But no warnings were given. They don’t need to be given, so it hasn’t made the dismissal any less legitimate.” She added: “But if they’re comfortable with the decision to affect the run out, India shouldn’t feel the need to justify it by lying about warnings.”^[10] The contested claim was no longer about the Law but about honesty.

Aftermath

The rewritten Law did not end the debate, and one gap in the wording soon surfaced. On January 3, 2023, in the Big Bash League, Melbourne Stars captain Adam Zampa pulled out of his action and broke the stumps with the Melbourne Renegades’ Tom Rogers out of his ground. The TV umpire turned down the appeal because Zampa’s arm had already passed the point at which he would normally have released the ball. On January 19 the MCC added Law 38.3.2, which says that once the bowler reaches that point, “it is no longer possible for the bowler to run out the non-striker under this Law,” even if the non-striker had left early. The MCC said this was not a change in interpretation but acknowledged “ambiguity in the wording which could lead to confusion.”^[11] Players and commentators continue to argue over whether a warning should be expected, and over whether the dismissal should still carry Mankad’s name.^[12]

The core dilemma

The Laws say a non-striker who leaves the crease before the ball is released can be run out, and say nothing about a warning. A long-standing custom says a sporting bowler warns first. The MCC tried to settle the matter by moving the rule out of the “unfair play” section, but it also insists that the spirit of the game is a matter for players. When the Law is clear and the custom is not, who carries the ethical duty: the batter who takes a few yards before the ball is bowled, or the bowler who punishes it without notice?

Competing values

• Letter vs. spirit: the dismissal is legal; the question is whether legality is enough in a sport that writes a preamble about its spirit.
• Fair warning vs. equal application: a warning feels courteous, but it gives a batter who has broken the Law a free pass that others do not get.
• Competitive advantage vs. sportsmanship: backing up early gains ground on a quick single; taking the wicket without notice wins matches.
• Truthfulness vs. team loyalty: after the event, the accuracy of the explanation became its own integrity issue.
• Tradition vs. reform: custom and the dismissal’s nickname carry history that the rule change could not erase.

Strongest arguments

The run-out is fair play, warning or not. The non-striker is the one gaining an unfair advantage. The Laws are clear, umpires need a rule they can apply at every level, and the MCC has said a warning has never been required. Requiring a warning would reward the batter who broke the Law. Bradman’s question applies: if the provision should not be used, why is it there? Moving it to the run-out section simply recognizes that it is an ordinary dismissal.

A warning is what the spirit of cricket asks. The Preamble exists because cricket expects more than compliance. A batter who drifts out of the crease is often not seeking an advantage, and a first-time warning corrects behavior without deciding a match by surprise. Even Mankad, the bowler whose name the dismissal carries, warned first. The crowd’s reaction at Lord’s shows that many in the game still see a dismissal without warning as falling short.

The real problem is ambiguity and honesty, not the dismissal. The worst controversies, Ashwin’s pause and Zampa’s late attempt, came from uncertainty over timing, which the 2023 wording addressed. At Lord’s the dispute that lingered was over whether a warning had been given. On this view, clear rules and truthful accounts matter more than whether bowlers warn.

Applying the frameworks

Kantian (duty)

A Kantian would ask which maxim each party acts on and whether it could be universalized. “Leave the crease early when it helps me” cannot be universalized without making the rule meaningless, which points toward the non-striker’s duty to stay in the ground. “Dismiss any batter the Laws allow me to dismiss” can be universalized, so a duty-based reading may see the bowler as acting within a fair, public rule. Yet a Kantian also cares about honesty: if a team claims a warning that was not given, it treats the public as a means to protect its reputation. On this lens the warning dispute may matter more than the dismissal.

Virtue ethics

A virtue lens directs attention to character and the habits a practice builds. One reading sees courage and vigilance in a bowler who enforces the Law at a tense moment, and carelessness or opportunism in a batter who keeps backing up. Another reading sees generosity, of the kind Mankad showed Brown, as the virtue of the sporting bowler, and asks whether winning a farewell match this way is what a good competitor would want to be remembered for. A virtue ethicist might also ask what each side’s conduct teaches young players watching at Lord’s.

Justice and fairness

Behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether you would be the bowler or the non-striker, which rule would you choose? A justice lens might favor a single standard applied to everyone, with no informal warning that some batters get and others do not, since informal norms can be applied unevenly. It might also favor rules precise enough that outcomes do not depend on an umpire’s reading of timing, the problem the 2023 change addressed. The lens is split on whether an expected warning is a fair procedural safeguard or an unfair advantage for the rule-breaker.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are the MCC’s Laws sub-committee in 2021, deciding whether to move the non-striker provision. Who are the stakeholders: bowlers, batters, umpires at club level, broadcasters, the Mankad family, children learning the game? Which codes are in play: Law 41, Law 38 and the Preamble on the Spirit of Cricket? Consider how an athlete, a coach, an umpire and a spectator would each see it.
2. Gather facts. What did you know from the 1947 dismissals, the Ashwin–Buttler case and the MCC’s own conflicting statements? What would you learn only later, at Lord’s in 2022 and in the Big Bash in 2023? Watch for tradition bias: the assumption that because a custom is old, it is right.
3. Test options. Option A: move the provision to Law 38 unchanged. Option B: keep it under unfair play and write a mandatory warning into the Law. Option C: move it and tighten the timing language at the same time. Run each through consequences, duties and the character it encourages.
4. Check codes and law. What does the Law actually require of the non-striker and of the bowler? Does the Preamble set duties players must follow or an ideal they aim for? Is a rule that “lives” in the unfair play section sending a message the text does not support?
5. Decide and document. State your rationale and the trade-off you accept: perhaps clarity for umpires at the cost of offending custom, or custom at the cost of uneven enforcement. Whom would you consult: the ICC cricket committees, players’ associations, umpires, women’s and junior cricket?
6. Communicate and follow up. How would you explain the change so it is understood in every cricket culture? What guidance would you give umpires and captains? How would you measure success: fewer disputes, fewer non-strikers leaving early, or less abuse of players who use the Law?

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled:

• Running out a non-striker who leaves the ground before the expected moment of release is a legal dismissal, and the Laws have never required a warning.
• Since October 1, 2022, the provision sits in Law 38 (Run out), not Law 41 (Unfair play), in both the MCC Laws and ICC Playing Conditions.
• Since January 2023, Law 38.3.2 states that the run-out is no longer possible once the bowler reaches the point of expected release.
• Charlie Dean’s dismissal at Lord’s was properly officiated, according to the MCC.

Contested:

• Whether a bowler should warn a non-striker before running them out.
• Whether India warned Dean before the run-out; Deepti said they did and Knight said they did not.
• Whether Ashwin’s dismissal of Buttler was within the spirit of the game, on which the MCC’s own statements differed.
• Whether the dismissal should continue to be called a “Mankad.”

Why this case matters

The case is a clear example of rules vs. spirit. The Law is precise, but the sport also asks players to honor a spirit that people in different cricket cultures read differently. It shows what governing bodies can and cannot do: moving a rule to a new section changed its label, and new wording fixed a timing gap, but neither settled whether a warning is owed. It also shows how quickly an integrity debate can shift from the act to the account of it. For students, it asks whether “legal but unethical” applies here at all, and if so, to whom: the bowler, the batter, or the team that explained it.

Key terms

Rules vs. spirit of the game

Rules are the written minimum; the spirit is the fairness and respect the rules exist to protect. Rules set the floor; spirit sets the ceiling.

Gamesmanship

Pushing the rules to their limits, without technically breaking them, to gain an edge. It tests, and can erode, the game.

Sportsmanship

Visible respect for opponents, officials, teammates and the game itself.

Fair play

Integrity put into practice: respecting both the written rules and the spirit of competition.

Legal but unethical

Law sets out what can be punished; ethics asks what is right. Compliance is a minimum, so an action can be lawful and still wrong.

Multiple points of view

Analyzing a dilemma from each stakeholder’s position in turn (athlete, parent, coach, administrator, official, bystander) before reaching your own reasoned view.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Should a bowler warn a non-striker before running them out, even though the Laws do not require it? Why or why not?
2. The MCC moved the provision from 'Unfair play' to 'Run out' without changing its wording. What did the move change, and what did it not?
3. Is leaving the crease early a form of gamesmanship? Is exploiting it gamesmanship too?
4. Heather Knight called the dismissal legitimate but accused India of lying about warnings. Why might the truthfulness of the explanation matter more than the act itself?
5. Should the sport stop calling the dismissal a 'Mankad'? Who should decide?

Sources

1. Brown Ignores Indian Bowler's Caution: Run Out (Daily Telegraph, Sydney, Nov. 19, 1947) — National Library of Australia (Trove)
2. The man behind the 'Mankad' — ICC
3. MCC statement on Mankad incident in IPL match — MCC / Lord's
4. Jos Buttler: 'Mankad' dismissal not 'in the spirit of the game' - MCC — BBC Sport
5. MCC moves to de-stigmatise non-striker run-outs in latest Law updates — ESPNcricinfo
6. ICC announces changes to Playing Conditions — ICC
7. England v India: Lord's finale ends with controversial run out as tourists claim series win — BBC Sport
8. MCC statement on Run-out at Non-Striker's End at Lord's — MCC / Lord's
9. Deepti Sharma-Charlie Dean run-out - Deepti says they had warned her — ESPNcricinfo
10. England v India: Mankad debate continues as Heather Knight denies Charlie Dean was warned — BBC Sport
11. MCC removes 'ambiguity' in non-striker run-out Law in wake of Adam Zampa incident — ESPNcricinfo
12. Mankad family feud over controversial dismissal name — news.com.au
13. England captain Heather Knight says India 'lying' over claims of warnings before controversial 'Mankad' run-out — Sky News