Jhulan Goswami and the debate of unfair play rule

Finally finally Goswami goes !!!

India's opening fast bowler retires from international cricket with 250+ W-ODI wickets in 200+ appearances - both records pretty tough to take away from her. And also to play 20 years to retire at grandma age of 39 is a feat that only a very few fast bowlers of both genders have achieved.

Once India had a spinner, who probably has the best ODI bowling average of all time with all the chances for all records, but decided to retire at the age of 30. So for women's game where tradition, marriage, kids, and all the what not push the players out of it, Goswami's stay seems like the longest fathomable.

And I don't think there are any other current players of both genders who played the first international match in 2002. So probably the longest staying international cricketer of all.
India-W marked her departure with a classic ODI where they defended 169, and Goswami's fellow fast bowlers proved that her departure won't leave them in any sort of shortcoming.
Now to the most unwanted debate of the last wicket of England-W. The act of running out anyone who leaves the crease early as the bowler goes into the stride is valid and legal. Not just new but it has always been so. It was once called the category of "unfair play" meaning that the runner is taking an unfair advantage.

Then it was kept aside as "not fitting the spirit of the game" but some players invoke the moral debate every now and then. It was attached to the name of the Indian player Vinoo Mankad just because it was an Indian who did it against then mighty Aussies (for example they do not call putting rubber balls in the gloves "gilchristing" or under-arm bowling "chappelling").

 ICC decided finally that the act should not be in the debatable category of "unfair play" leading to debate and it should be made yet another way of running out a player. The debate should not be there anymore. But then, that rule is not active as yet, as far as I can see it will only be active on the first of October.

That does not mean it's illegal. Once again an Indian has done it against England, so there is a huge outcry and moral codes and whatnot. It is unclear what they are saying. The act was, is, and will be legal. The category only changes. The moral debate should no longer be there that is what ICC clearly shows up. The timeline of Oct 1st is for the category change, not for the moral debate. The moral debate is already invalid.

But, having said that I am looking forward to seeing more amendments just like the "flexing the arm" of a bowler, which once was regarded illegal, and then found that everyone is doing it on a minor scale, and in fact, it is really hard not to do it. This is another rule that almost everyone is breaking and hence may need amendments. T20I Wc is gonna be really interesting in the backdrop of this.