Pollard declines Mankad in CPL thriller

The culprit in a highly-controversial Mankad incident at the 2016 Under-19 World Cup very nearly saw his batting partner dismissed in the same fashion in the Caribbean Premier League on Monday.

West Indian Keemo Paul was criticised by the likes of David Warner and Stephen Fleming last year when he took the final wicket of the match against Zimbabwe by running out the non-striker as he was about to bowl.

Such a dismissal is legal under the laws of the cricket but it's deemed by some to be against the spirit of the game, and Paul was widely criticised by past and present players.

And 18 months later, Paul's batting partner Assad Fudadin was almost dismissed in the very same way during Guyana's tense win over Barbados in the CPL.

With Guyana needing eight runs to win with seven wickets remaining, Paul faced up to Barbados skipper Kieron Pollard partway through the 19th over. As Pollard was about to bowl, he noticed non-striker Fudadin had advanced out of his crease so the bowler stopped next to the stumps and indicated that he could remove the bails and run Fudadin out.

While completing such a move would have been a perfectly legal dismissal, Pollard decided against taking the wicket and instead simply warned Fudadin to stay in his crease until the ball was bowled.

Fudadin did just that from the next ball as Paul was caught at long-on, but Guyana held on to claim a four-wicket win with five balls to spare.

The term 'Mankad' was first coined in 1947 when great Indian allrounder Vinoo Mankad ran out Australia's Bill Brown at the non-striker's end during a Test match at the SCG.

Quick Single: Shield, One-Day Cup schedules revealed

Despite being within the rules, such an act has long been considered unsportsmanlike and the likes of Mankad and Paul have been widely vilified.

Last year, the MCC moved to eradicate such controversy by extending the point at which a bowler can attempt the run out and also changing the name of the law to "put the onus on the non-striker to remain in his/her ground".

"It is often the bowler who is criticised for attempting such a run out but it is the batsman who is attempting to gain an advantage," the MCC said of changes to Law 41.16, which is now called 'Non-striker leaving his/her ground early' having previously been called 'Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery'.

"The message to the non-striker is very clear – if you do not want to risk being run out, stay within your ground until the bowler has released the ball."

The MCC's changes, which will come into effect next month, are in line with the thoughts of former India skipper Sunil Gavaskar, who recently called for the term 'Mankad' to be eradicated from the game's unofficial terminology as it's disrespectful to the great Indian allrounder, and Sir Donald Bradman, Australia's captain during the original incident in 1947.

Brown always took full responsibility for his famous dismissal in that match, while Bradman was incredulous that the blame had been directed at the Indian player.

"For the life of me, I can't understand why (the press) questioned his sportsmanship," Bradman wrote in his autobiography Farewell to Cricket.

"The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered.

"If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the non-striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage."

Quick Single: Mankad should be scrapped: Gavaskar

In April, Gavaskar said he agreed that the batsman should be responsible for remaining in his or her crease and applauded the MCC for the change.

"There's no debate as far as I'm concerned," he said.

"If the batsman is trying to take an unfair advantage by leaving the crease before the ball has been delivered, I think the bowler has every right to remove the bails. Even without warning him.

"The Laws are very, very clear and I think now that the MCC has come up with accepting that, I think a lot of people will start to understand that it's the batsman who is being unfair, not the bowler."