Arrogant Buttler Forces Senanayake Into Dismissal At NonStriker's End

Here is the video of the dismissal. Senanayake warned Buttler "throughout the previous over" as the live commentators said. Jos Buttler evidently disregarded all these warnings. He was dismissed at the non-strikers end.

The condemnation has been swift. BBC Test Match Special's  Jonathan Agnew:
"Legally, it is a fair dismissal. Depends how you want to play your cricket…"

The Daily Mail's cricket correspondent Paul Newman:
"Sangakkara gave the most brilliant Spirit of Cricket lecture at Lord's a couple of years back. Wonder what he makes of that??"

Mike Selvey, former England fast bowler, Chief Cricket Correspondent for the Guardian, twice:

"Bloke with questionable action bowling to keeper who gave magnificent Spirit of Cricket lecture does that. Within laws but so so shabby."

"I know Buttler was being dozy, had been warned, and it was in the laws and it was his fault. But Is that really how we want the game played"

Lawrence Booth, an exception:

"Senanayake had warned Buttler already. Not sure why Buttler kept taking the risk of leaving his crease early."

Simon Wilde, Cricket Correspondent of the Sunday Times:

"Interesting: Senanayake runs out Buttler for backing up too far. He had warned him earlier. Technically sound but is it in the spirit?"

Most people pointed to Senanayake's problematic action as a coincidental matter. But Wilde went further:

"Brave act from a man whose action is under scrutiny and might be regarded as lucky to be playing. Dopey from Buttler though"

The Cricketer observed:

"Now then. Jos Buttler has been run out by the bowler Senanayake after backing up too far. Boos at Edgbaston. England 199-7."

Sky Sports Cricket advertised the episode as the main point of discussion in their show:

Here's Law 42.15 after Buttler's controversial dismissal. Hear what our pundits think live on Sky Sports 2 HD now. pic.twitter.com/Sh3YVkQcW2

I'm interested in accuracy. Here are some accurate points.

1. Buttler's dismissal was not controversial. The correctness of the decision is not in dispute. The etiquette followed by the bowler is not in dispute either. There are exactly zero substantive points of fact that are in dispute. There are exactly zero substantive points of law that are in dispute.

2. Buttler was not "dozy". He was not caught dozing, as George Dobell puts it in an argument in which he asserts that the umpires, the bowler and the Sri Lankan captain are blameless.

What I find absolutely despicable in this reaction is that all these distinguished professional observers of the game who are just itching to moralize about Senanayake's choices, and will not even approach the ethics of Buttler's conduct. Bringing Senanayake's action into the discussion is a textbook case of an ad hominem argument. That Senanayake has been reported for his action is entirely irrelevant especially to this mode of dismissal. It would be more relevant to bring it up in the case of Alastair Cook's dismissal.  The bold subtext of Simon Wilde's observation reads to me like Wilde is saying "Why doesn't this Senanayake know his place?"

Buttler was warned. Not 20 minutes before he was dismissed, but in the previous over. By its very nature this warning is at odds with the flow of the game. It interrupts the bowler's concentration, the batsman's concentration, the non-striker's concentration and the umpire's concentration. 

Does it sound plausible to you that Buttler forgot about the warning from the exact same bowler in the previous over? Or does it sound more plausible to you (as it does to me), that Buttler willfully ignored the warning and stepped outside the nonstriker's crease anyways?

In other words, was not Buttler willfully disrespectful of a courtesy his opponent extended to him? This is not dozing. This is arrogance. This arrogance is a deadly upper cut to the spirit of cricket.

I support the idea that Umpires should check with fielding captains before they rule a non-striker out in an appeal for Mankading. Captains should have the opportunity to withdraw such an appeal. I support this because cricket is a game played by human beings and the same human beings who walk away after being bowled or caught at cover, should be given the courtesy of reflecting on their choices. It is one of the nicer things about cricket.

An accurate description of Buttler's dismissal would point to Buttler's demonstrable disregard for a courtesy shown to him by his opponent. Any serious interest in the Spirit of Cricket would require that Buttler be pulled up for this. This is not how this episode has been reported. It has been reported as a "controversy". At best, it has been reported as a case of the bowler being right and Buttler being absent minded. Both of these views of the situation are wrong. The latter is less wrong than the former.

It was Buttler and not Senanayake who behaved shabbily in this case.