Follow the laws, forget the 'spirit'

England invoking the spirit of the game at Lord's is a feeble attempt to distract from Aussies gaining from the simplest interpretation of law

- Somshuvra Laha

Three years ago, a bunch of Australian cricketers were asked if they were okay with a bowler running out the non-striker. Mitchell Starc said 'no'. As did Steve Smith, Alex Carey, Usman Khawaja and Josh Hazlewood who added a rider that a warning must precede it. "I'm leaning towards yes," says Nathan Lyon in the video by cricket.com.au. And here's Pat Cummins weighing in on the matter: "I used to be a no, but I'm starting to come around to a yes."

Everyone is entitled to their interpretation of the spirit of the game. You might refuse to walk, claim a grassed catch, touch the boundary rope while saving a four, get in the way of a throw directed at the stumps, run out a batter who has tripped or deflect a throw that runs away to the boundary in the final of a World Cup. But there is, and will always be, only one interpretation of the law. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, or whether you found it confusing, like in the case of Gill's catch in the WTC final. At the end of the day, the law needs to be upheld in the strictest sense possible.

That is exactly what happened at Lord's two days in a row. On Saturday, Starc seemed to have completed Ben Duckett's catch before holding the ball groundwards while completing his slide. The law, however, deemed it not out. On Sunday, Jonny Bairstow wandered out of his crease after ducking under a Cameron Green bouncer with the assumption that it was the end of the over. But since Ahsan Raza had still not called 'over', it automatically validated Carey's stumping appeal.