3 reasons why Rohit Sharma was wrong to take back Mohammed Shami's run-out appeal

There was an interesting incident pertaining to Rohit Sharma in the opening ODI of the three-match series against Sri Lanka at the Barsapara Cricket Stadium in Guwahati on January 10. While the result of the game was a foregone conclusion, there was some excitement over whether Lankan skipper Dasun Shanaka could get his hundred.

The Men in Blue batted first in the game after losing the toss and posted a massive 373/7 on the board courtesy of Virat Kohli’s 87-ball 113. In response, Sri Lanka collapsed to 206/8 before Shanaka brought some respectability to his team’s total with a stunning counter-attack.

Shanaka was batting on 98 in the last over when Mohammed Shami stopped in his follow-through and attempted to run him out at the non-striker's end for backing up too far. The bowler appealed and the on-field umpire even signaled for a replay. However, Indian skipper Rohit Sharma withdrew the run-out appeal after a light-hearted discussion with the bowler.

While the Indian captain won plenty of praise for his sportsmanship, we analyze three reasons why Rohit might have put himself in a tight spot with his decision to withdraw the appeal against Shanaka.

---

#1 It was a situation-based decision

Fans react after the 'no run-out' episode during the 1st IND vs SL ODI

Rohit, himself, made it pretty clear at the post-match press conference that he decided to withdraw the appeal because Shanaka was batting on 98 and it wouldn’t have been right to get him out that way.

When asked about the same, he commented:

“I had no idea Shami did that (run-out), he was batting on 98. The way he batted was brilliant; we cannot get him out like that. Not something that we thought off, hats off to him, he played really well.”

As mentioned earlier, the move won him a lot of bouquets. At the same time, a lot of uncomfortable questions were also raised. One being - would Rohit have done the same if this was a World Cup final or a big match?

What if the game in Guwahati was on the line? Would he still have withdrawn the appeal? Your guess is as good as mine.

---

#2 Creates confusion over India’s stand on the mode of dismissal

Deepti Sharma ran out Charlie Dean at Lord’s last year. Pic: Getty Images

Whether or not to run out a non-striker if he prematurely steps out of his crease is often seen as an individual’s own standpoint. However, over the last couple of years, India have been seen as a team who have vocally supported showing batters the exit door if they fail to follow the rules.

Team India off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin has been at the forefront of the mission to take the stigma away from running batters out at the non-striker’s end for not following the correct procedure. He famously (or infamously, depending on which side of the debate you are on) ran out Jos Buttler during IPL 2019.

India women’s all-rounder Deepti Sharma also ran out Charlie Dean at the non-striker’s end in an ODI in Lord’s. The wicket won India a close match and the subsequent controversy overshadowed the fact that this was Indian fast-bowling legend Jhulan Goswami’s farewell international game.

As per ICC’s modified rules, running out a non-striker for backing up too far is absolutely legal and no longer falls under the ‘spirit of cricket’ category. Ironically, with his decision to withdraw the appeal against Shanaka, Rohit only reignited a debate that has never quite settled despite the rule change.

More significantly, it also creates confusion over Team India’s stand on the mode of dismissal. If Ashwin appeals for a non-striker’s run-out in the future, will Rohit overrule him or back the bowler? If such a thing transpires, it will be quite a scene.

---

#3 Can Rohit Sharma live up to the precedent he has set?

Ravichandran Ashwin ran out Jos Buttler during IPL 2019. Pic: BCCI

Last but not the least, Rohit has set the bar on expectations very high with his decision on the Shanaka appeal. Every time such a situation arises in the future, the Indian captain will be expected to follow the precedent he has set. It will be easier said than done though.

Just in case Rohit comes up with a different answer to the tricky appeal in the future, his thought process will be questioned. There are various factors at work in every game and a decision is often taken keeping the present in mind.

When Rohit made up his mind to negate the appeal made by Shami, he probably didn’t realize what he was getting into. To conclude in cricketing parlance, Shami bowled a bouncer to Rohit, who failed to duck out of it in time.

---