Cricket News : MCC tweaks wording of law governing Mankad rule at the non-striker’s end

This change has come in the wake of Adam Zampa’s attempt to mankad Tom Rogers in BBL 12

In a new development which has come after an incident during a Big Bash League T20 match between a derby match between Melbourne Stars and Melbourne Renegades. The MCC has decided to tweak the law of Mankading in order to avoid a possible ambiguity involved during the process.

MCC announced that they slightly change the law of wording to remove all the confusion when there is an attempt of run-out at the non-striker’s end. The Marylebone Cricket Club had to look into this issue after Melbourne Stars captain Adam Zamppa tried run Tom Rogers out at the Non-striker’s from a point of releasing the ball.

In simple words, Zampa had complected his action and his hand’s revolution reached the point of releasing but the Leggie then pulled back from his action and removed the bells after seeing Rogers move ahead of the crease. Adam Zampa immediately appealed but moments later the 3rd Umpire denied any chances of out.

Law 38.3.1: “…the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball.” The vertical isn’t mentioned.

The Law is too vague – what’s an ‘instant’? We’re going frame by frame to work out when Tom Rogers leaves his crease and where Adam Zampa’s arm is. https://t.co/5ELml1Z9M7

— Nakul Pande (@NakulMPande) January 3, 2023

Shawn Craig who was TV Umpire in that match, had his decision nodded by the MCC and also cleared the air around the issue.

As a result MCC have put out a new law 38.3.2 which reads that once the bowler has reached the point of releasing the ball and the non-striker has left the crease then any chances of Mankading will be sent back. “Even if the non-striker had left his/her ground before the instant at which the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, once the bowler has reached that point it is no longer possible for the bowler to run out the non-striker under this Law.”

The MCC also revealed that this new rule was anyways in effect and appreciated the umpires and players to be aware of it but the ambiguity which brought confusion in the situation will be removed.

Fair decision by the rule-makers?