Retired or retired out? Judicious use of cricket laws to keep fans' interest alive

One of the Unique Selling Propositions (USPs) of the Indian Premier League (IPL) is its ability to throw up fascinating facets that keep the interest of both the old-timers and the new-generation followers of the game completely hooked on to it.

One such occasion that took the fans by surprise was the instance of one bowler (Kamindu Mendis) displaying his ambidextrous ability with the ball. But the use of a cricket law that seldom finds application in other versions of this game on two occasions during the course of one week was so unique that a more elaborate discussion on the subject is warranted.

Law 25.4 deals with the 'batters retiring'. The gist of the provisions under this heading are as follows:

(i) A batter may retire at any time during his/her innings provided he/she informs the umpires about his/her decision to do so. 

(ii)  If a batter retires because of illness, injury or any other unavoidable cause, that batter is entitled to resume his/her innings. If, for any reason, this does not happen, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - not out’.

(iii) If a batter retires for any reason, the innings of that batter may be resumed only with the consent of the opposing captain. If, for any reason, his/her innings is not resumed, that batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired - out’.

(iv) If, after retiring, a batter resumes his/her innings, it shall be only at the fall of a wicket or the retirement of another batter.

Normally, in cricket, batters are expected to keep batting till the opposing side dismisses them. The game's history is replete with batters who placed a premium on their wicket so much that they wanted nothing else in life other than batting for hours on end without a break. Hence, one expects batters to leave the crease, unless they are dismissed, only if they are laid low by injury or illness.

But in the IPL match between Mumbai Indians (MI) and Lucknow Super Giants (LSG), Tilak Verma of MI was recalled to the pavilion by the team coach Mahela Jayawardene just prior to the commencement of the final over. Tilak, who was batting on 25 off 23 balls, was finding it difficult to put the ball away and he made way for Mitchell Santner to join skipper Hardik Pandya at the crease. The move did not pay off as MI could not reach the target of 24 runs in 7 balls and lost the game by 12 runs.

In the game against Punjab Kings (PBKS), Devon Conway of Chennai Super Kings (CSK) was batting on 69 from 49 balls when he was asked to retire. Chasing a target of 220 runs, Conway anchored the CSK response and his 89-run stand for the third wicket off 51 balls with Shivam Dube kept his side in the game. But his pace of run-scoring slackened after he crossed the half-century mark, which forced coach Stephen Fleming to replace him with Ravindra Jadeja at the crease. However, this move also did not help as CSK too fell short of the target by 18 runs.

Incidentally, this was not the first time that this clause in the statute has been used in IPL. The first instance happened in 2022 when Ravichandran Ashwin, then playing for Rajasthan Royals (RR), retired to make way for Riyan Parag. This happened on two occasions during the 2023 edition as well, with the batsmen who retired being Atharva Taide of PBKS and Sai Sudarshan of Gujarat Titans (GT). After a gap of one year with no batsman “retiring out” in the 2024 edition, this law has been put to use again during the current year.

Statistics show that this provision of the law book was first used by Sri Lanka in a Test match against Bangladesh in Colombo in 2011. In that game, which Sri Lanka won by a margin of an innings and 137 runs, both Marvan Atapattu, who scored 201, and Mahela Jayawardene, with 150 runs against his name, retired after reaching the respective landmarks. This decision was not made to increase the scoring rate but to give other batters opportunities against a weak Bangladesh attack. This move was even decried as one “lacking in sporting spirit” by some observers, who felt that this action sent an insulting message to the Bangla bowlers.

There have been some controversies about the differentiation between Retired Hurt and Retiring on other grounds. One such incident took place in the second Test of the series between India and West Indies in 1976, which was played at Port of Spain, Trinidad. After India had gained a lead of 161 runs in the first innings, West Indies lost two quick wickets by the time the side scored 30 runs. Soon afterwards, Viv Richards, who had scored a brilliant 130 in the first innings, had to leave the crease as he was feeling uneasy. He did not inform Bishen Bedi, who was leading India, about his decision to retire.

When Richards tried to resume his innings at the fall of the third wicket, with the score at 52 runs, Bedi objected, stating that the batsman did not leave the field due to any illness or injury and hence needed permission from the fielding team captain before he could bat again. This led to a difficult situation, which was defused only by skipper Clive Lloyd coming out to bat. Richards could resume his innings only after the fall of the fourth wicket, at 112, and he and Lloyd saw his side to the safety of a draw after that. Lloyd was not amused by this decision of Bedi and criticised the Indian skipper for his “unsportsmanlike” act.

How does the use of this law more frequently affect the game? In some ways, this rule is similar to the one in football and basketball, where a player in the initial playing 11 can be replaced with a substitute. Such a rule enables a side to tide over the challenge posed by a better who cannot pull his punches on a particular day. Usually, a batter who is unable to find his touch is put out of his misery by getting dismissed, but there may occur instances where he continues at the crease but is unable to get the willow to the ball. Hence, this development will be to the advantage of the batting side in limited overs’ matches, especially in T20s, where the risk of losing all 10 wickets seldom arises. Thus, it is safe to assume that this provision will become more frequent in T20 matches than in the other versions of the game.

Before concluding, one cannot help but observe that one instance where India would have loved to use this statute was during the inaugural match of the 1975 World Cup. Chasing a mammoth score of 334 runs piled up by England batsmen in the allotted 60 overs, India could reply only with a measly 132. The main culprit behind India's poor show was none other than the legendary Sunil Gavaskar, who batted through the entire innings, faced 174 balls, and remained unbeaten with 36 runs! As the great man has since confessed, it was one of those days when he could not get going. Neither could he get the ball off the square nor did his attempts to get out succeed.

After some time, he batted in a trance, merely going through the motions like a zombie, without appreciating the extent of the damage he was causing to his side’s efforts as well as to his own reputation.

Had this provision of law been used during those times, Gavaskar could have been brought out of his misery by the 10th over or so, the Indian chase gained more traction, and the final margin of defeat a little less humiliating. Unfortunately, this was not done, despite India being led by Srinivas Venkataraghavan, one of the most knowledgeable cricketers, who successfully pursued a career in umpiring after his active playing days were over.

To summarise, the improvisations and innovations in the game and its statute books help to take cricket forward through modern times and prevent it from becoming fossilised. However, judicious use of these new provisions is also required to protect and preserve the unique charm of this sport and prevent it from becoming a purely “slam and bang” affair. One needs a combination of the old and new to sustain spectators' interest and invite new talent to this enchanting game.