Ravi Ashwin deploys controversial mankad to dismiss Jos Buttler

Dead ball. The bowler has deliberately pulled up after entering his delivery stride, pulled up BEFORE the batter has left his crease, waited until the batter left his crease and then broke the stumps. Dead ball. Not out. If that is a legitimate wicket and became common practice... who would watch? The final overs in a close match would become a farce. If this is “technically” legit, then cricket has a problem.

not a plodder like me.

Objective just means impartial, not that a judgement isn't needed. “When the bowler enters his delivery stride” or “commences his delivery action” still requires a judgement by the umpire. It's just more obvious. Subjective refers to the actual intent of the player, such as whether or not he intended to release the ball.

If the umpire has to make a judgement then it is by definition subjective. An objective test would be "when the bowler enters his delivery stride" or "commences his delivery action".

I'd argue that "normally" applies when the bowler actually has an intention of bowling the ball. Ashwin did not - which Butler didn't realise, as he wasn't looking at him, which is why he walked out of his crease. Agree to disagree Jimmy, I'm not for a moment going to admit Ashwin was in the wrong. Butler wasn't paying attention and against a bowler such as Ashwin who is renowned for gimmicks, stopping & propping etc - well, you saw how it ended. Bet Butler won't be doing that again.

It's substituting one rule for another, not bringing more rules in.

Actually, for a Mankad, the ball is in play *until* its normal time of delivery. After that point, the bowler can't Mankad the batsman. It has to occur in the time between the bowler commencing their approach and the expected time of release. That's why I don't think Buttler should have been given out. Ashwin took the bails off well after the time at which he would normally have released the ball.

'Normally would have' is an objective test, though. It requires the umpire to make a judgement as to when the bowler would normally have released the ball. That's no simple thing to do, of course, given that in a lawful Mankad attempt the bowler never actually brings their arm over to release the ball. A subjective test would refer back to the intent of the bowler - e.g. "when the bowler was planning on releasing the ball". Which in a Mankad attempt is arguably 'never'.

The one caveat to that approach is that you don't want Mankad attempts to drag out a game. Teams could sensibly try this half a dozen times or more in a T20, which works out to roughly an extra over per innings. I don't know what the answer is, though. Maybe a Mankad free-for-all is the best of a bad bunch of options.

[Ignoring your condescension and the fact that Ashwin's front foot had landed before Buttler left his crease....] The word 'normally' is critical here. It's not based on what the bowler did or didn't do on that particular delivery. Otherwise 'normally' could just be removed (i.e. "the instant when the bowler would have been expected to release the ball"). 'Normally', coupled with 'would have', plainly requires a judgement as to the point the bowler would have released the ball had they completed their bowling action. Think about it this way: no lawful Mankad attempt EVER involves the bowler completing their bowling action. If we use your interpretation then I'd even say there is no point stating the time by which the bowler must effect the Mankad at all, because "the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball" never exists. The rule could just say that the batsman can be run out at any time after the ball comes into play. The fact that it doesn't just say this is telling.

Perhaps you would enjoy indoor cricket.

Its a very English way of doing it. Cricket rules are massive because they try to consider every possibility rather than work on principles. Batsmen that leave early are effectively running short, start docking runs and they will stop.

(a) It only takes a split second from the front foot landing to the ball's release. (b) The batsman can only be run out up until the expected instant of delivery. Even if you think Buttler was out of his crease then, Ashwin broke the stumps waaaaay after that point so it should have been a dead ball. What you think the person with the ball 'should' be able to do has no bearing on the actual rules.

My question Sgt is, who needs to uphold the spirit of the law? The batsman who knows he has to keep some part of his body or bat behind the line or the bowler who can see a guy deliberately cheating, so choses to do something about it? This Buttler run out was not a great example I agree, but if you Google some of the other run outs effected at the bowlers end, nearly all have the batsman well out of their ground, which is cheating and so a low act by them.

Here is one vote for the Mankad. I have always admired thinking cricketers, footballers etc. Ones who find ways around rules to get the edge. I'd go a step further and let the bowler run the batsman out at any time. It would get a heap of rules off the books and add clarity.

That's a very modern nanny state way of looking at it. Bring in more and more rules and complexity for something that already has a solution.

"Money and/or the pressure to win could mean more and more of these types of dismissals happening" Exactly Paul. That's where the spirit of the game needs to be upheld. Not sure it's for the ICC to control. I think we can agree that Buttler was hardly stealing a few feet down the pitch. Low act by Ashwin

Unless Ashwin is "expected" to release the ball halfway through his delivery stride then it was clearly out. The person with the ball should be able to run you out, it's that simple. Don't leave your crease.

The batsman is CHEATING. Stay in your damn crease.

I’d say that was pretty obvious about you, having played cricket for over 30 years, including at first grade and rep level.