Run Out Dismissal Rules in Cricket: Backing Up, Mankad, and Both Batters Out of Crease
Complete guide to run out dismissal rules in cricket — how a run out works, the backing-up-too-far rule, what happens when both batters are out of the crease at the same time, the collision with fielder provision, and how the Mankad run out differs from a conventional run out.
A run out occurs when a fielder puts down the wicket — either by hitting the stumps directly or by throwing to a wicketkeeper or other fielder who removes the bails — while a batter is out of their ground and attempting a run. It is one of cricket's most exhilarating dismissal types, with the dramatic interplay of sprinting batters, fielders diving in the deep, and thrown stumps creating some of the sport's most memorable moments. The rules governing run outs are more nuanced than the basic definition suggests, covering several specific situations that require careful adjudication.
Core Run Out Rules
Under Law 38 of the Laws of Cricket, a batter is run out if, at any time while the ball is in play, they are out of their ground and the wicket at that end is put down by the fielding side. 'Out of their ground' means no part of the batter's bat or body is grounded behind the popping crease. The crease is the white line extending across the pitch, four feet from the stumps. To be 'in' the batter must have their bat or some part of their person behind that line — the bat must be grounded, meaning touching the pitch surface, not just extended in the air. The wicket must be put down while the batter is out of their ground — if the batter has made the crease even by a fraction before the bails are removed, they are not out.
Backing Up Too Far: The Non-Striker's Position
The non-striker — the batter standing at the bowler's end — is entitled to back up, meaning to start walking toward the striker's end to prepare for a possible run, as the bowler begins their delivery stride. However, if the non-striker is out of their ground (beyond the popping crease at the bowler's end) before the ball leaves the bowler's hand, the bowler is permitted to attempt a run out by deflecting to the stumps at the non-striker's end — this is the Mankad dismissal, now formally incorporated into Law 38.3. The non-striker can legitimately leave their crease during the bowler's run-up but must be behind the crease until the ball is released. A non-striker who backs up too aggressively risks the Mankad.
When Both Batters Are Out of the Crease
On any delivery, it is possible for both batters to find themselves out of their respective creases simultaneously — for instance, if the ball is hit firmly to a fielder and both batters have crossed during their attempted run. If the fielding side puts down the stumps at either end while both batters are out of ground, which batter is dismissed? Law 38 specifies that the dismissed batter is the one who was nearest to the wicket that was put down — that is, the batter who was heading toward that end (running toward it) when the wicket was broken. The striker heading to the non-striker's end, or the non-striker heading toward the striker's end, determines which player is out based on direction of travel at the moment of dismissal.
The Mankad: Its History and Modern Status
The Mankad dismissal is named after Vinoo Mankad, the Indian all-rounder who ran out Australian opener Bill Brown at the non-striker's end during a tour match in 1947 — and again in the second Test of the same tour. The dismissal has historically been treated as 'within the Laws but against the Spirit of Cricket', with bowlers expected to warn a non-striker before attempting it. This tradition of a warning was customary but not legally required. The ICC formally revised this position in the 2022 Laws update, removing the Mankad from the 'Unfair Play' section and re-incorporating it under Law 38 as a standard run out. The change explicitly recognised that the non-striker who gains an unfair advantage by leaving the crease early is the party responsible, and the bowler is entitled to run them out without warning. This has not ended the cultural debate about whether the dismissal is 'cricket', but it has resolved the legal position.
Frequently asked questions
If a fielder collides with a batter during a run — either accidentally or deliberately — does the batter get dismissed if they are out of their crease?
Collisions between fielders and batters during a run are governed by Laws 26 (No Ball) and 37 (Obstructing the Field), and the outcome depends on who initiated or caused the obstruction, not simply who is out of their crease at the time. Fielder obstructs a batter: if a fielder wilfully obstructs or distracts a batter who is attempting to make their ground — including through physical contact that impedes the batter's progress — the umpire can call and signal Dead Ball and award five penalty runs to the batting side. The batter is NOT out, even if their wicket is broken during the incident. A fielder who runs across a batter's path to prevent them reaching the crease is committing obstruction. Accidental collision: if the collision is accidental — both parties attempting to reach the same area of the field — the umpire must judge whether either party has wilfully obstructed the other. If genuinely accidental with no party at fault, the run out decision proceeds normally based on whether the batter made their ground before the wicket was put down. However, if the collision caused by the fielder prevented the batter from reaching the crease, umpires typically call Dead Ball to avoid penalising the batting side for the fielder's action. Batter obstructs a fielder: under Law 37 (Obstructing the Field), if a batter wilfully obstructs a fielder attempting to field the ball or put down the wicket — this includes deliberately standing in the path of a throw to the stumps — the batter can be given out Obstructing the Field. This is a distinct dismissal from run out. The practical point: run out decisions when a collision has occurred require the on-field umpires to determine intent and cause. The third umpire may review the video evidence, but the interpretation of 'wilful' obstruction remains an on-field umpire judgement that cannot be overturned by DRS.