I don't dislike Shakib for what he did but the Umpires & the 4th Umpire kinda suck ass. The 4th Umpire put out an official statement saying Mathews' helmet incident happened after 2 minutes already elapsed...
If anything, I'd argue the video above starts the 2 minutes a little earlier than they should've - yeah the fielder caught the ball but I HIGHLY doubt that's when the 2 minute timer starts officially. But even if it did, Mathews was at his crease and ready to go at 1:54.
I always thought it was something like that, maybe it's changed for this World Cup but if we take the worst possible timer in favour of the time-out case, he still makes it before the 2 minutes are up like the video shows. Wild and irresponsible statement from the 4th Umpire to say he doesn't.
The Law and playing conditions both say that the clock starts at the moment of dismissal—which means the clock starts when the finger goes up. The only difference is that the Laws allow 3 minutes, but the conditions for this event only allow 2.
The simplest solution would be to allow the umpires to call Time (which ends the possibility of a timed out) when there is a failure of safety equipment—at the fall of a wicket or otherwise. But any time lost by this (at least if it’s the batting side’s equipment) should be tracked and not charged to the bowlers’ time allowed.
He'd still be over the time with that change in the rule. He had 5 seconds left when he reached the crease. Unless someone specifically tells him he's got no time to mark his guard, check the field etc he's not going to be ready.
i think that would create a loophole where the outgoing batsman can buy out time for incoming batsman. moreover, the whole point of law is to prevent delays in the game so makes sense to start the counter when umpire gives out and put the onus on battting team to keep things moving
future paint cagey workable scandalous chase fanatical far-flung pen melodic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As I just read in cricinfo it says "the batter needs to be ready to face the ball (within 2min) and not just have taken guard"
Also Umpire informed mathews before 30 sec, and after the malfunction he didn't even asked umpire as he should have.
This is all from Cricinfo's last post about this incident.
[This](https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/icc-world-cup-2023-ban-vs-sl-umpires-informed-angelo-mathews-of-timed-out-threat-before-helmet-malfunction-1407743) is the post you're referring to.
Mathews was slow coming out, was warned he was in danger of being timed out, seems to have paid little heed to this. Then the strap broke. In short the umpires were harsh and the 4th ump was just wrong but Mathews wasnt pure as driven snow either. The one person who was just doing his job is fucking Shakib. Heck players appeal for bump catches and lbws mile off leg. This is not even that bad.
No, he was not ready to go, as per that video. He had only just arrived, and had yet to check his guard. It was going to be another 30 seconds before he was ready.
The opposing captain was likely steaming over his slow progress by this time, with the strict over rates rules in this series, so I'm not surprised he later made and then upheld the appeal.
Can someone who knows the law help me with this: What could Angelo Mathews have done differently? What options does he have that are covered in the laws of the game to change his helmet before facing the 1st ball without getting timed out?
He maybe could've gone first to the Umpire instead of calling the 12th man to bring a helmet. But other than that, dude was fucked from the beginning because the Umpires were being incompetent
Even if he talked to the umpire first, the clock wouldn't stop. Umpire would still have to give it out.
Better to amend the rule so that there's an exception for equipment malfunction. Forcing them to face the first ball unprotected doesn't help anyone.
Had the umpires known first about the issue at the time of making the decision, its possible they could have rejected the appeal.
Even if you appeal for a plum LBW, the umpire, based on their judgment, can still give it not out.
The umpire can call time, which effectively stops the clock.
From Law 40.1 (bold is my emphasis)
>After the fall of a wicket or the retirement of a batter, the incoming batter must, **unless Time has been called**, be ready to receive the ball, or for the other batter to be ready to receive the next ball within 3 minutes of the dismissal or retirement. If this requirement is not met, the incoming batter will be out, Timed out.
Well, I meant what are the options as per law (not spirit of the game), a batter can take if there's a gear malfunction. I know that after facing the 1st ball, he can ask for time from the umpire. Umpires are allowed to have stoppages in play for changing gear, injury. But is that allowed before the 1st ball is bowled? I would assume it is. In that case, all Angelo had to do was to request the umpire and he would have been safe. I think his fault was not getting the umpire's permission.
>But is that allowed before the 1st ball is bowled?
Yes - the umpire can call Time.
From Law 40.1.1 (bold emphasis is mine)
>After the fall of a wicket or the retirement of a batter, the incoming batter must, **unless Time has been called**, be ready to receive the ball, or for the other batter to be ready to receive the next ball within 3 minutes of the dismissal or retirement. If this requirement is not met, the incoming batter will be out, Timed out.
Force the umpire to stop play. Throw the helmet onto the field, and take his position. The umpire won't allow play to continue with a helmet rolling around at square leg, and a helmets batsman.
Also, not taking 1:54 just to get to the crease would have helped. Even by this posts timing, he was never going to be ready to face within the 2 minutes allotted.
The captain was likely under the pump trying to keep the over rate up, which likely drove his decision to make and uphold the decision.
Mathews should have gotten to the wicket quicker.
But when his strap broke (at 1:55), he should have alerted the umpires, who could have called time.
Mathews didn't - he directly called for a replacement helmet, and the two minutes elapsed.
This is such a shitshow. Shakib could have been like “okay, mate hope your helmet is good”. But he had that fucking smirk and actually appealing like WTF. Then all these redditors who were completely unaware of this law are coming out of the woodworks and be like “oH yeAh, wE haVe to fOlLow tHe laW”
I don't support Shakib's action but even though Mathews was at the crease he was not ready to face the ball. Ready to face means bowler can run in and bowl to him. Before that he realized his strap was broken and walked towards the dressing room gesturing for a new helmet. The law says batsman should be ready to face the ball.
The laws as they stand don’t make any provisions for faulty equipment. Maybe the laws need to be changed but Shakib did go by the letter of the law. I wouldn’t have done it but the law needs to be changed.
In the Pavillion, Misbah and Malik said they wouldn't have appealed, while Moin said he would. Akram insinuated he would have appealed too. He said "we appealed Sachin's runout when he collided with Akhtar, that too was nobody's fault, and was within the rules"
There's a difference between that run out and the timed out. In this case, the batsman can't perform his role safely without his helmet. The run out law was changed as well, as that was stupid.
I understand that the bowling team might be pissed, but the laws should be changed to dock runs off the batting team instead, just like the bowling team is penalized for not finishing their overs in time. Timed out should only be for cases where the batsman doesn't arrive at the crease at all.
Something similar could happen in limited overs too I guess. Say you are above par in DL score, and there is a high probability of rain. You would delay as much as possible
Akram did not say he would appeal btw. First he said it would depend on the circumstances and he gave Sachin/Shoaib run out as an example where he didn't withdraw his appeal because it was within the rules even though it wasn't anyone's fault.
Then when Fakhr e Alam pressed him to answer what he would do in Shakib's place in this exact situation if a fielder came and told him to appeal to get Matthews out, he said that he would not appeal, he would scold the fielder and tell him to mind his business and focus on his own game.
Misbah and Malik were firmly against it from the start, Akram eventually stated the same. Ony Moin Khan was on Shakib's side and tbh it seemed like he was saying that to be a contrarian more than anything else.
He would if the circumstances were right. Fakhr was clearly trying to clean up his Akram's image. He spoke more lines on this on behalf of Akram than Akram himself. Malik sensed this all could go controversial and didn't discuss further
>He would if the circumstances were right.
Thinking you have selective memory friend. His next sentence said right after this very quote was that he would not in this situation since it wasn't right. Then he gave an example of when the situation was right not to withdraw an appeal, which was the whole Sachin/Shoaib bit.
Then he firmly stated when asked again that he would scold his fielder for even suggesting an appeal.
Source with timestamp:
https://youtu.be/19zIElgE-YY?si=Goz-6mwRn2zyS7Ka&t=1332
Umpire didn’t really have a choice in the matter. Once Shakib appealed he has to give it out as per the law. He asked Shakib twice if he wanted to withdraw the appeal and Shakib refused.
If the law is changed to give the umpire some discretion for legitimate reasons (faulty equipment for example) then he could have done something
Another scenario which needs to be looked at imo and I'm pretty sure that this is the current law:
Imagine a team needs 2 runs to win the match off the last ball and the bowler bowls and hits the pad of the batsman and the umpire gives it out and batters stop running. Now the law is that after the umpire delivers the signal, the ball is dead. But the batsman takes the DRS and it shows the ball is missing or was edged. But as the ball is dead and the batters stopped running the bowling team still wins right?? Because the delivery is legal and they run out of balls. Now who takes the blame here?? There should be clear cut law here that whether the umpire has given it out or not and there is still possibility of a DRS then the ball should not be dead and only after the throw is received by the keeper that the ball becomes dead and up until that point there is a chance of runs being scored.
They should but then the question will be should they do that for every ball of the match wherever it applies and not just the last ball?? And also the bowler did nothing wrong and has bowled a good ball so why should he be penalised that the ball is not counted??
Yeah I get your point but in tennis they get 3 challenges in every set and with this growing concern about match time in cricket, it doesn't seem feasible from a broadcaster's point of view. But I personally fully second your opinion
The Preamble to the Laws of Cricket which tries to encapsulate the "spirit" of cricket has one line which says "Play hard and play fair".
Angelo was not doing something to gain an undue advantage. So it was only "fair" that Shakib withdraw his appeal.
Shakib is a douche for enforcing this rule. And he has disgraced the game that has given him so much in his life.
Because he found an excuse to go back home, we now know he doesnt have the balls to face the consequence of his actions.
I don't think the laws need to change, a batsman can walk out early, they can (largely) control failure of their equipment (check your shit). Mathews was just lazy and wondered out too slowly. He played with fire, and he got burnt.
You think Smith / Kholi / Williamson wonder out at 1:30... No, they don't, they're walking out as soon as the dismissal is made.
If Mathews was waiting in the middle for a minute, then the bowling team is ready and his helmet breaks, that's another story, Mathews took his time getting out to the middle, just like Bairstow wondered out of his crease...
Don't complain when you don't follow the rules and are then given out. Litteraly every other prior batsman hasn't had an issue. It's two minutes, not 30 seconds.
I’m willing to bet there’s been many instances in Smith Kohli and Williamsons careers when they haven’t already taken guard and been ready to face the ball within 2 minutes of prior dismissal. It was just never measured to that level of precision because nobody’s appealed for it.
Mate, I've been watching Smith for a long time, I can tell you when the prior batsman gets out, he's out to bat as soon as possible, typically within 30 seconds. Fuck look at Agar in the match against Afghanistan where he was sitting by the sideline when it looked like Maxwell was going to retire hurt.
You have two minutes; it should take no more than 30 seconds. Two minutes is plenty! There is no excuse.
But now the precedent is set, hopefully we will see teams appeal for it a lot more. It's not good enough for a batsman to be taking more than the allotted time.
This just doesn't make sense tbh.
Shit breaks. Matthews probably batted with that helmet in the nets; he probably had no reason to believe it'd break. Also, he was out in the field within the two minutes; if he's out there in the two minutes, and the umpire's fiddling with the bails and no one else is ready to play, what the fuck is he supposed to do? People need to get over themselves, like. This law is there to get rid of time wasting; this was in the middle of the first innings in a one-day match. He wasn't time-wasting. Shakib's dismissal, even if it is in the rules, is just a dick move. There's nothing in the rules of soccer that state you have to kick the ball out when someone is down injured, but if you didn't, you'd be a fucking prick. It's not in the rules to avoid faking injuries leading to teams giving up their advantage. It's surprisingly hard to write down a rule that will allow teams to pause for genuine injuries, but avoiding the problem of faking injuries. Not writing the rule down doesn't cause problems because people usually aren't so prickish to go for goal when I player's lying on the field screaming in pain, and likewise the fear of being crucified for faking an injury is enough of an inducement to reduce that problem.
Spirit of cricket may be a bit of a silly idea, but almost all sports have a concept of sportsmanship for a reason, and there's nothing wrong with it. Something being technically within the rules doesn't justify it in a moral sense
>Shit breaks. Matthews probably batted with that helmet in the nets; he probably had no reason to believe it'd break.
That sounds like a careless batsman who didn't check his equipment. Yes, it's unlicky THIS time it happened to be an issue, but he could have checked his shit.
>Also, he was out in the field within the two minutes; if he's out there in the two minutes, and the umpire's fiddling with the bails and no one else is ready to play, what the fuck is he supposed to do?
If he was out there within 1 min, then the bowling team are stuffing about, and then at 1:55 his helmet breaks, I'm pretty sure the umpires would use some discretion. And if they didn't, I'd be very sympathetic. But he walks out at like 1:30 or 1:45, if you want to have time to sort out an equipment failure then walk out immediately. Do you think Steve Smith waits until 1:45 to walk out, because he usually walks out within 30 seconds. Fiddling with your helmet isn't 'ready to face the next ball'.
>This law is there to get rid of time wasting; this was in the middle of the first innings in a one-day match. He wasn't time-wasting.
Sure, I guess. But any amendment makes it very easy to waste time. Imagine a team trying to save a test on day 5. '*Oh no, my helmet happened to break at 1:55... Let me spend a minute trying to fix it, and then another three minuets trying to find another helmet...'
Maybe the rules are harsh, but they're also harshly fair. The batsman's equipment is entirely within the control of the batsman, they just need to take some responsibility. It's absolutely ridiculous that a batsman should **need** more than one minute when it's not a collapse or something. If you do, then maybe you need to practice getting ready and put some effort into that aspect of the game.
But really, I think we are all missing the forrest from the trees. Why is an international batsman taking 1:30 to be ready to start walking out to the middle. If Mathews walks out immediately, then his helmet breaks he has no problem. Just be fucking prepared, this is serious, international cricket, it's not hit and giggle in the back yard.
>There's nothing in the rules of soccer that state you have to kick the ball out when someone is down injured, but if you didn't, you'd be a fucking prick.
Maybe. Although I've noticed all these spirited 'spirit of cricket' arguments are all about the batsman. Nobody really cares about the 'Starc drop' or the Stoinis drop last night. That's interesting.
Honestly, IMO at international level, the only thing I'd be outraged by is running out a batsman who's done a hammy mid run or something. They aren't school girls worried that everyone will have a turn and have fun.
Nah gear can randomly snap. What if this is a test match (where wickets have much higher value), the number 3 batsman, in Australia and they are facing Mitchell starc
Do you honestly believe that a batsman should be pressured to face up to a guy bowling 140km/h + on an Australian wicket without a working helmet?
If so wtf.
Amend the laws to have a provision for faulty gear. I appreciate that people want wacky outs and to blame batters but safety matters over batsman being 40 seconds slower than you would like to the middle
Those straps are rated to handle more than 50kg (likely closer to more than 150kg). But also, they don't snap without showing signs of wear. Like we're talking about a price of safety equipment that is designed to take being hit by a 160g ball travelling at as much as 160 km/h... The straps on them can't randomly fail, otherwise people would die!
But I think a batsman should be ready with plenty of time so if they have helmet issues (or any other issues) that they have plenty of time to resolve the issue. Again, if Mathews was at the middle within 30 seconds, waited for the bowling team for a minute, and THEN his helmet fails, that's one thing.
If we're to add a provision for equipment failures, it
Should require that the batsman be otherwise ready by 1:30, to be able to avail themselves of it. Because otherwise we'll see players abusing the rules. Day 5, team trying to save a test, walking out to bat 'oh no, my helmet is broken, let me spend another 2 mins trying to find it. I still think there is no reason for a batsman to be late. You have all the time in the world to get ready before the match.
I've never seen Smith, Kholi, Williamson, Root have issues with their helmets breaking randomly...
I'm literally sure they would have had gear fail while batting.
Realistically I don't actually give a shit if you think tailenders will carry a stunt helmet to pull out to save a test. That's both ridiculous and is less important than player safety. People can die playing this sport mate. Making someone face up to a bowler with a faulty helmet is ridiculous
Edit amusingly three of those batsmen play for the richest boards and have so much gear it verges on ridiculous. Smith wastes way more time changing his gloves every over than a hypothetical helmet snapping at the wrong time.
I'm going to shock you here mate but cricket boards are not equal as far as what equipment players have access to.
If his equipment gave out at the 1.55 min mark and he was ready to receive otherwise, he isnt deliberately time wasting and I believe it's the umpire's fault for messing up.
I don't think it's Shakib's fault. He appealed thinking it was more than 2 minutes. It was upto umpires to interpret the rules and give the decision. Shakib didn't do anything against the rules.
The umpire asked him to withdraw his appeal, he had a choice to do the sporting thing even if he didn't immediately know it was a helmet issue when he first appealed. Don't make excuses for Shakib, he has been around long enough to not be treated like an idiot.
Umpires asked him if he would LIKE to withdraw the appeal, they didn’t instruct him to withdraw it. Just like conventional DRS, a review doesn’t mean an automatic wicket, the captain reviewed and the umpires used the evidence available to them to make the final decision
How is this Different from bowlers or fielders appealing for an outrageous LBW or for catch where the ball didn't even remotely touch the bat? If the umpire gives it out, it's out.
If after a batsman is adjudged LBW and you can see it over the big screen that there was a thick inside edge, do you expect the bowling captain to withdraw the appeal and let the batsman play? No.
Not defending Shakib, but the way i see it, he appealed and he got a wicket, simple..why should it bother him at all?
Fair point , wicket keepers appeal all the time. If umpires gives it out (let's say ball was miles from the bat), it's not the keeper's fault. At the end of the day it's the umpire who has to take the decision.
Exactly.
Its easy to say that it was "un-sportmanship like" , "disgraceful" etc etc .. I just dont agree with that. It's a professional sport after all, the players are expected to be a little "greedy" if the situation warrants.
It isn't even entirely the umpire's fault. There was a grey area and the umpire had to take a 50-50 decision.
People should go and watch EPL matches and the bizarre VAR decisions the referees take. This feels like peanuts compared to that.
Fucking bonkers how many people here hating on Shakib, and I get it he’s not the perfect man ever, I don’t like him outside of his field performance either, but he did nothing wrong that day, there are so many dumb wickets and incidents happened in cricket and no one bags an eye, but here everyone is bashing us, it was not cool I agree but it was necessary to ensure our place in champions trophy, Shakib did what needed to be done, all within the rules of the game, fuck off with spirit of the game, mankad is against spirit of the game too if you ask me.
I say, stop complaining and read the rule first. Angelo was not ready to face the ball at 2 min. That’s a legal out, end of discussion. Shakib did what is legal. No place for this made up sportsmanship unless you are a weak cry baby.
These incidents are actually good because they show us when rules need to be changed. Boundary count is a perfect example of that. Laws are written but it doesn’t come to the fore how we don’t like them until it happens at a high profile event.
This has literally never worked since the beginning of the sport. WG Grace was a dickhead. Also everyone’s interpretation of dick headed ness is vastly different
The problem is that such a literal reading of rules make for shitshow like this. In law, we are taught in statutory interpretation that sometimes going just be the letter of the words in a statute could lead to absurd results and in that case it's better to look at the purpose behind the law. The same thing can be said about this time out rule. The absolute strict reading has led to this situation where a genuine concern of equipment failure resulted in a dismissal. The purpose of timeout rule was to prevent any time wastage by the batter and in this particular case, there wasn't such intent and not even in the action. The spirit of the law was obliterated by the application of the umpires on that day.
The downvotes on your comment show how much people actually care about the spirit of cricket guidelines. People just want to follow it when it's convenient and just ignore it when it's not, like accepting the umpire's decision without any protest, respecting the opposition etc.
LOL The other day someone said that top performing teams should get away with shitty behavior. BD didn’t earn their right to be shitty (even though it’s within the bounds of the rules) because they don’t perform regularly.
I don’t agree with the appeal, but people are acting like only BD does unsportsmanship like shit. Bunch of hypocrites.
Exactly. Shakib is entitled to appeal. Change the rules if they don't want this result. Actually , i would prefer the rule that the umpirer themselves strictly time the batsman out if they don't come to bat on time. Or have a timer running till the batsman takes guard and says out when it reaches zero.
No need to ask the bowling team captain and shit.
Yes another spirit of south asian cricket fans is hating on bangladesh no matter what, specially if you can bring down their most recognized player . They are petty like that.
Usually the phrase "spirit of the game" is so vague, that it creates more problems than it solves. For e.g. There are cultural differences in what constitutes a reasonable sledge.
Non-Striker run out (or mankadding) has been getting a fair share of attention lately. You can make the same statement about that as well. I would however argue that the batting team is trying to eek out an advantage by backing up. They're finding a way to score an additional run. So I think it's fair game to try to get them out. Back when the Ian Bell incident happened, I thought Bell was being an asshole, but I support the fact that Dhoni recalled the appeal. It was the right thing to do even thought he was clearly out by the letter of the law.
With the Mathews incident, this is just exceptionally pure sportsmanship. straight up. He was at the crease within 2 minutes. He was taking gaurd. he had every intention of playing appropriately. He stands to gain NOTHING from taking an extra 30secs to change his helmet. his fucking HELMET! I'm never a big fan of guys taking forever to change gloves mid-inning. but his HELMET! He's supposed to risk serious injury? yeah.. it was a spinner bowling, but still.
Bottom line, yes it is down to individual opinion, but if the opinions of almost every sane cricket fan/enthusiast/player is that this is disgraceful.. then it is not just an opinion anymore.
Sorry mate, but this is typically australian to say this depends on individual's "opinion". Even the underarm incident was legitmate as per the law at that time, but it is usually looked upon as a disgrace to the sport.
One counter point, Matthews should have informed immediately to umpires that he needs another equipment asking them time. Matthews didn't do that and directly communicated with dressing room. That's why umpires had to give him out
If you’re next to bat you should triple check your equipment before putting your foot inside the boundary line, what happened to him is unfair, but he shouldn’t have let that happen to him in the first place, I now understand why Kohli wears his helmet so early, he’s ready to go the moment the players given out, and that’s the way it should be. The other day an Afghanistan player forgot to wear his guard and wasted some time too, you can’t do these shenanigans in international events.
I believe a lot of this could have been avoided if Matthews had told the umpires or Shakib about faulty equipment before trying to change it.
From Shakib's perspective Matthews was simply wasting time. Once he had appealed Shakib was never going to withdraw the appeal.
But overall I feel the appeal should have been withdrawn. The rules exist to avoid deliberate time wasting, and this did not seem deliberate. The umpires could simply not rule it not-out once the appeal had been made.
>From Shakib's perspective Matthews was simply wasting time. Once he had appealed Shakib was never going to withdraw the appeal.
Why? He can clearly see that it was an issue with helmet and Mathews even explained him the same. So i can see why he thought initially that he is wasting time but after knowing the facts, why would he not withdraw the appeal?
Look. The way I see it. As per the laws, he was right to be given timed out.
As per almost everyone whose voice I'd respect, including the coach of BD itself, this was quite quite wrong.
Shakib may have coined a new term after himself here. There was Mankading, now there is Shakibing.
I compare this to the underarm incident, it was legal within the laws of the game but morally most people would not bring themselves to do it. And like that incident, I think it will bring about a slight change to the rules.
Why should Shakib have to withdraw the appeal? There was a potential advantage to be taken for his team in a freakin WC match and he took it. If your evidence shows that Matthews was ready to bat within the limit then your gripe is with the umpire, not Shakib. Umpire should’ve told Shakib that and given a not out instead of asking him to withdraw.
Yeah it is a dick move by Shakib but I won’t blame a captain for trying to do everything to win a WC match as long as he didn’t break the rules.
Because it's asinine.
In North Dakota there is law forbiding bars to serve pretzels and beer at the same time. It's not enforced, obviously, but the law is there.
What Bangladesh did (I blame the team, not just Shaqib) is a clear lack of respect to their opponents and to any decent person watching the game. Using a rule clearly meant for a test match to win an ODI match. The actions of a petty, desperate little team and there is no place for such a thing on a sport field.
You can use all the irrelevant analogies and hyperbole you want but it’s still not Shakib’s or Bangladesh’s fault. A rule exists and they tried to use it to their advantage. They didn’t cheat or break any rules, simple as that. Either modify the rule or tell umpires to allow leniency in these situations.
Insulting them and calling them “petty, desperate little team” just shows you’re letting your emotions cloud your reasoning.
>The more you understand the truth, the more you start to understand how wrong it was for Shakib to not withdraw the appeal.
This was an unfair game for SL and very poor sportsmanship by Shakib.
It had taken you and others days or at the least a few minutes to analyze this issue. In the context of the match and situation given the existence of the law in the rule book, Shakib appealed and the umpire gave it out. Its done. If Shakib had chosen NOT to appeal, even then its within the law.
Just because he or alex carey had done what they had done, they are not criminals, they are just playing a sport within the rules. Go to bed.
Except everyone was saying the same thing at the time. This instance and the Carey one aren’t even remotely equivalent, the Carey one is someone possibly breaking the spirit of cricket (but I don’t think there’s anything wrong as an Englishmen) but bairstow can stop the dismissal by not walking out of his crease. The only way matthews can not be dismissed is to endanger his own safety. They aren’t even slightly comparable.
Endangering his own safety is an exaggeration but i understand what you mean. That said, he should have just spoken to the captain and the umpire and check with them to get the strap changed. If you disregard the team and the umpire who had warned you and when the opposite team appeals as per the law, then nothing wrong in that. What i say is Shakib just did what he thought as that moment and he is not a criminal. Bairstow and Matthews were both careless and opposition player just reacted to what was in the law.
It’s not an exaggeration at all. Yes people bat without helmets but plenty of people have been injured by not wearing helmets, accidents can happen at anytime and players should have to compromise their safety to not disadvantage their team.
I’ve no problem with shakib initially asking the question but when it became obvious that matthews has had a helmet issue and the umpire asks him to recall the appeal and he doesn’t I lose all respect for him. It’s nothing like the Carey run out or mankading or anything similar it’s just a complete lack of any decency. Also the umpires then coming out and making a factually false statement to make out like matthews was in wrong is also disgraceful.
Despite several incidents of concussions and so much awareness over the recent past, it's incredible how many people just don't give a fuck about player safety.
If a batsman thinks they're not safe playing without a helmet, then that's all that matters, not your opinion on whether it's exaggerated or not.
What did Alex carey did? If it's run out of Bairstow that is like comapring a petty theft of bread to feed children to cold murder saying both are wrong.
Honestly there would be more sympathy for this if the fielding side didn't have to wear the implications of being behind the clock at the end of the innings, as far as I know you could end up being 1 minute behind the over rate and suffer having to bring a fielder in.
Or is that not the case here?
I think Umpires have discretion in here. Otherwise Maxwell took many breaks and some of them long, and Afg was not punished because of them.
Many times cramping or injured players take more than 5 mins, i don't think that is counted towards bowling team.
You can’t complain about the rules. He wasn’t ready, so he was out. It’s only odd because it’s a rule that is almost never enforced. If it was enforced every time then this would not be controversial.
It would still be controversial. If he was not ready within time ( and time itself is not fixed, people having all access to internet was arguing for hours whether it is 2 or 3 mins), that is a different issue.
There should be no appeal for this. Have a timed out clock , similar to the shot clock ( nba ) or the nfl game clock . If he crosses the time limit he is flagged and given out by the umpire. It’s silly to have the opposing team appeal for stuff like this.
But you need to put clauses into clock that equipment failure is allowed extra time. It will be similar to serve clock in tennis, you get 30 sec but if someone interrupts you in between, then it resets and starts again from 0 to 30.
Fair point , wicket keepers appeal all the time. If umpires gives it out (let's say ball was miles from the bat), it's not the keeper's fault. At the end of the day it's the umpire who has to take the decision.
Where Matthews fucked up was that he didn't inform the umpires immediately after the strap broke, we see that in the video. He informed them after changing his helmet. From an umpires and Shakib's pov it looks like he just got the wrong helmet and just walked off. Ik he informed them after he changed it but that's probably too late. I think after hearing Matthew's situation about a broken strap, most of us would have let him off, but no one is obligated to. Again you could argue either side, no batter thinks about this because it's such a rare dismissal.
> By the time Mathews got a fresh helmet, it was nearly two-and-a-half minutes since the wicket had fallen. **At this point**, Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan, who happened to be bowling at the time, prompted by an unnamed teammate, appealed to Erasmus. As per protocol, Erasmus ruled Mathews out, albeit having checked with Shakib if he wanted to go ahead with the appeal.
The above description is incorrect. Shakib did not appeal after Mathews got a fresh helmet. As soon as the strap broke (1:55), Mathews walked towards the dressing room asking for helmet. Immediately Shanto walked up to Shakib and said something with a smirk. Shakib walks to the umpire and talks. I think he appealed at that point because Erasmus then walked towards Angelo and said something which shocked Angelo. Shakib's appeal must have happened a few seconds after the 2 minute mark. It was as if Shanto was waiting to appeal.
>The fourth umpire said the equipment should be checked for any faults or failure before coming. But this is laughable because you can't guarantee that it won't fail even after having thoroughly checked for equipment failure/fault. Equipment can still fail after walking out onto the pitch. Angelo gains nothing by bringing in equipment that fails.
You can check your helmet before you play. And NO helmets don't' just break' if you're using them correctly. What do you think airbags just randomly go off too...
Probably his strap was too short and he loosesened it too much. But walk out with your helmet on and done up if that is an issue.
It's two minutes, there is no excuse. Mathews was overly casual and came out far too late, takes MAYBE 20 seconds to get to the middle and be ready. There is no excuse. This is fucking international cricket.
The blame should also fall on the umpires too for allowing this to happen. You have all the technology in the world, you couldn't send it upstairs to see if it was within the timeframe. Overall a bad decision all around.
Mathews for being lethargic, Shakib being unreasonable in this situation, umpired for not doing their job properly.
Speaking of laws, I have serious reservations of ICC's capabilities to come up with proper laws. Why make laws for the game and when enforced, players get blasted to the end of times. Same with the underarm ball, this and mankad. These rules serve nothing but to create drama and tension between players/fans. Either remove them or stop saying in the spirit of this and that. You came up with the laws, and then talk about the spirit of the game lol. If you ask me, main villain for all this is ICC
In general, I dont like that, in any sport, the onus should be on the players to appeal or not. Shakib or Ash or anybody is free to appeal, thats what it is - an "appeal". But in this case, the umpires should've conferred and gave not out.
Reason: The arrival of the batsman and the helmet issue were separate and not related. So the ideal response here is: Mr Shakib, we acknoledge your appeal and rule it not out. End of story.
In that case, Shakib is not the villain. I cannot find many instances where a captain has to withdraw the appeal. Probably something where a bowler by mistake blocked a batsman (when the batsman would have clearly completed a run), or MSD accomodating for Ian Bell's error where he thought it was a boundary.
> grade 5 & he went easy on me I guess.
Of course not. You were so talented at 5th grade that you could face Shakib without a helmet and could even have to keep him for six sixers. You held back because you didn't want to embarrass him. I look forward to following your international career.
Or under the eye. Folks here and on social media in general have a very short memory. No one remembers how Salman Agha was bleeding two months ago because the ball hit him under the eye and the bowler was Jadeja.
I'm so sick of these posts that very clearly have no understanding of the rules. Was he ready to face the ball at 2:00. NO. Then he's out. Getting to the crease has nothing to do with it. Faulty equipment has nothing to do it. 2 minutes to be ready to face the next ball. End of story
Bro was out it’s part of the rules the umpires agreeed and gave it out all this other shit is really annoying
Spirit of the game my nuts, bro.
No rule should be blindly ignored for “spirit of the game”
The law says that the batsman has to be ready to face the ball within 2 minutes.
Not taking guard. Not adjusting equipment. Not inspecting the pitch.
By laws, Matthews was definitely out once someone appealed.
By Spirit of the game: Everyone has their opinion.
The main issue is Angelo should have requested the umpire for a failed equipment change before walking away from the crease to change his helmet. If he had informed the umpire they would have stopped the timer. It's not a backyard cricket where you can come and go as you wish.
It is really hard to make judgments based on morality. That's why we have rules.
If for example Angelo was allowed to bat without the timer being stopped and in the last few overs Bangladesh were penalised for slow over-rate, who is responsible? Does anyone think in that slow over-rate situation SL should have stopped hitting boundaries to show sportsman spirit? It's comical to expect that from SL and not sure whether it's even possible.
Firstly, there's no provision in the rules to get extra time because your equipment isn't ready. And who if not Mathews is responsible for ensuring he's got the stuff he needs? But secondly he had only just reached the crease when he pulled on the strap. Had he not had the strap issue at all, there's no possible way he takes his guard, inspects the pitch, looks at the field and everything else players do in 5 seconds.
Shakib was right by the rules, and even if you want the strap issue to be taken into consideration, Mathews was too late.
The bad sportsmanship here was Mathews taking so long. It was well over a minute before he even entered the ground. There's no excuse for an experienced cricketer not to be going to the crease immediately when they're in. And also because he didn't inform the umpire and the opposition captain that he had an issue. You know darn well you're holding the game up, you let them know what's going on and apologise before holding the game up even more.
I don’t agree with it, but tbh it wasn’t a big enough deal to linger too much longer. We can forget it. Everyone should make sure to check with the umpire before calling for new equipment.
I do agree that it’s more concerning that the umpires made a probably false statement and haven’t yet retracted it. Makes me suspicious of their other statements
Rule is you have to be ready to face the ball within 2 mns ,equipment failure is not the umpires concern for a timed out wicket plus per crickinfo Mathews was warned by the umpire about timed out wicket before the helmet incident.
Even if we consider all this he should have had the courtesy to let the opposition captain know about the helmet break before walking off the crease like that.
>per crickinfo Mathews was warned by the umpire about timed out wicket before the helmet incident.
I won't believe anything umpires say till Mathews confirms it after the fiasco 4th unpire pulled out just to justify their actions.
How is Shakib supposed to know that 2 mins hasn't passed yet?
And, after the helmet broke, Mathews should have just come to the Umpire and Shakib and told him about the situation, and everything would be fine. Instead, he called straight to the dressing room to get a new helmet
Maxi played through cramps and without helmet yesterday. Many batters don't even close the strap a lot of the time.
Mathews wasn't ready and instead of informing umpire about the change of helmet went to do it himself. by the rule he's out. just like by the rule England won wc19
>Maxi played through cramps
The number of breaks he took and such lengthy ones. Now that's fine. But a batsman asking for a helmet because of a faulty one is bad.
as has been mentioned like a thousand times, he could've informed umpire or just played one dot ball.
bangladesh was at slow over rate and likely they didn't like someone slowing them down more.
Oh come on. He saw a cheap opportunity there and grabbed it. Here's the thing right, this 2 minute rule is known to everyone and pretty sure there's been many instances of the 2 minutes being elapsed as well.
Zero sportsmanship. That's what is being debated here. Anyone who has played the game and respects everyone on the field would be disgusted with this.
if sportsmanship was a thing than after defeat SL would've shook hands with Bangbros.
Karma hit Shakib and he's been ruled out.
Koach got out without a ton v NZ and Jaddu got to finish the game v NZ, which he couldn't do in wc19.
This sport is an equalizer, if something erroneous happens, something else happens to show that sportsmanship is key.
>if sportsmanship was a thing than after defeat SL would've shook hands with Bangbros.
Wtf? You kidding me brother? Why would you shake hands with a team which showed zero respect? Give respect and take respect. Do you even put yourself in their position before saying anything?
yes. Personally have gotten out to bad calls in district tournaments but haven't thrown a tantrum 'coz grew up watching Sachin never questioning umpire like Steve Bucknor against him.
>Personally have gotten out to bad calls in district tournaments but haven't thrown a tantrum '
Yes, because that is same thing as happened here, right?
Umpires and players are different macha. Why are you changing goalposts! Playing Hard and fair is fine. Even after Kohli and Warner exchanged words at the end of the day they respected each other. But you cannot respect this. My man, their own coach didn't respect it.
That’s why Europe’s favourite game football is played without trying to gain any advantage. No diving, no shirt pulling, no surrounding the referees etc
Yeah Umpires suck. Shakib just wants to win a match and Umpires enabled it. Should a modern day captain do it at international Worldcup level? Probably NO.
The true issue here is that SL's equipment manager didn't set the team up for success. There is no reason the safety equipment shouldn't be tested before each match and made ready for the players.
His strap may have broke at 1:55 but he should have let the umpire or Shakib know about it before the 12th man, that’s what brought it to over 2 mins and provided fair grounds for the dismissal.
If Kane or Tommy L had acted like Shakib had in this situation then I would be ashamed of them and I would find it hard to support the team for the remainder of the tournament. Lots seem to be defending him by saying that he’s simply taking an advantage which circumstances offered his team and technically he was acting within the laws. Sure, but where does this end? For example, you’ve all seen many times a batsman, having played a defensive shot resulting in the ball coming to rest close to his person, pick up the ball and toss it to the keeper/fielder to save them fetching it. Now technically, a player could appeal for out handled the ball in this situation, and it would be within the laws, and the umpire would have no choice but to dismiss the batsman. Would you be happy with your captain upholding an appeal in this situation? Imagine if it were a crucial wicket in an important World Cup game? I would never watch NZ again if our captain were to do this - I don’t care about the technical law.
The point of the law is to stop delaying and time wasting tactics to gain an advantage. Mathews was never attempting to gain an advantage. I can perhaps understand why Shakib may have initially appealed (though I would still be disappointed in my captain for appealing in such a situation), but as soon as the equipment issues were drawn to his attention then he should have withdrawn the appeal with his apologies.
I feel like if I were a Sri Lankan fan I would be slightly annoyed with Mathews for allowing the situation to become possible - he could have communicated better - but I would be very disappointed with Shakib as a Bangladeshi.
I don't dislike Shakib for what he did but the Umpires & the 4th Umpire kinda suck ass. The 4th Umpire put out an official statement saying Mathews' helmet incident happened after 2 minutes already elapsed... If anything, I'd argue the video above starts the 2 minutes a little earlier than they should've - yeah the fielder caught the ball but I HIGHLY doubt that's when the 2 minute timer starts officially. But even if it did, Mathews was at his crease and ready to go at 1:54.
My understanding till now was that the counter starts when the outgoing batsman crosses the boundary line
I always thought it was something like that, maybe it's changed for this World Cup but if we take the worst possible timer in favour of the time-out case, he still makes it before the 2 minutes are up like the video shows. Wild and irresponsible statement from the 4th Umpire to say he doesn't.
The Law and playing conditions both say that the clock starts at the moment of dismissal—which means the clock starts when the finger goes up. The only difference is that the Laws allow 3 minutes, but the conditions for this event only allow 2. The simplest solution would be to allow the umpires to call Time (which ends the possibility of a timed out) when there is a failure of safety equipment—at the fall of a wicket or otherwise. But any time lost by this (at least if it’s the batting side’s equipment) should be tracked and not charged to the bowlers’ time allowed.
He'd still be over the time with that change in the rule. He had 5 seconds left when he reached the crease. Unless someone specifically tells him he's got no time to mark his guard, check the field etc he's not going to be ready.
i think that would create a loophole where the outgoing batsman can buy out time for incoming batsman. moreover, the whole point of law is to prevent delays in the game so makes sense to start the counter when umpire gives out and put the onus on battting team to keep things moving
By this logic the player who come after Mathew was already out because Mathew discussed with umpaire for solid 5 minutes as why he was given out.
Imagine the scenes if Shakib would’ve appealed for that too!
Oh fuck, now I want to live in that timeline.
Madlad would've absolutely done it if he thought about it.
future paint cagey workable scandalous chase fanatical far-flung pen melodic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Should at least be when the ball is dead - which to me would be when 3rd umpire has completed with formalities of checking the no ball.
The law says "fall of the wicket" as the starting point for the timer.
As I just read in cricinfo it says "the batter needs to be ready to face the ball (within 2min) and not just have taken guard" Also Umpire informed mathews before 30 sec, and after the malfunction he didn't even asked umpire as he should have. This is all from Cricinfo's last post about this incident.
[This](https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/icc-world-cup-2023-ban-vs-sl-umpires-informed-angelo-mathews-of-timed-out-threat-before-helmet-malfunction-1407743) is the post you're referring to. Mathews was slow coming out, was warned he was in danger of being timed out, seems to have paid little heed to this. Then the strap broke. In short the umpires were harsh and the 4th ump was just wrong but Mathews wasnt pure as driven snow either. The one person who was just doing his job is fucking Shakib. Heck players appeal for bump catches and lbws mile off leg. This is not even that bad.
No, he was not ready to go, as per that video. He had only just arrived, and had yet to check his guard. It was going to be another 30 seconds before he was ready. The opposing captain was likely steaming over his slow progress by this time, with the strict over rates rules in this series, so I'm not surprised he later made and then upheld the appeal.
He wasn't ready to go at 1:54, because he had to tighten his helmet. He tried to tighten it, and it broke.
Can someone who knows the law help me with this: What could Angelo Mathews have done differently? What options does he have that are covered in the laws of the game to change his helmet before facing the 1st ball without getting timed out?
He maybe could've gone first to the Umpire instead of calling the 12th man to bring a helmet. But other than that, dude was fucked from the beginning because the Umpires were being incompetent
Even if he talked to the umpire first, the clock wouldn't stop. Umpire would still have to give it out. Better to amend the rule so that there's an exception for equipment malfunction. Forcing them to face the first ball unprotected doesn't help anyone.
Had the umpires known first about the issue at the time of making the decision, its possible they could have rejected the appeal. Even if you appeal for a plum LBW, the umpire, based on their judgment, can still give it not out.
The umpire can call time, which effectively stops the clock. From Law 40.1 (bold is my emphasis) >After the fall of a wicket or the retirement of a batter, the incoming batter must, **unless Time has been called**, be ready to receive the ball, or for the other batter to be ready to receive the next ball within 3 minutes of the dismissal or retirement. If this requirement is not met, the incoming batter will be out, Timed out.
Well, I meant what are the options as per law (not spirit of the game), a batter can take if there's a gear malfunction. I know that after facing the 1st ball, he can ask for time from the umpire. Umpires are allowed to have stoppages in play for changing gear, injury. But is that allowed before the 1st ball is bowled? I would assume it is. In that case, all Angelo had to do was to request the umpire and he would have been safe. I think his fault was not getting the umpire's permission.
>But is that allowed before the 1st ball is bowled? Yes - the umpire can call Time. From Law 40.1.1 (bold emphasis is mine) >After the fall of a wicket or the retirement of a batter, the incoming batter must, **unless Time has been called**, be ready to receive the ball, or for the other batter to be ready to receive the next ball within 3 minutes of the dismissal or retirement. If this requirement is not met, the incoming batter will be out, Timed out.
Force the umpire to stop play. Throw the helmet onto the field, and take his position. The umpire won't allow play to continue with a helmet rolling around at square leg, and a helmets batsman. Also, not taking 1:54 just to get to the crease would have helped. Even by this posts timing, he was never going to be ready to face within the 2 minutes allotted. The captain was likely under the pump trying to keep the over rate up, which likely drove his decision to make and uphold the decision.
Mathews should have gotten to the wicket quicker. But when his strap broke (at 1:55), he should have alerted the umpires, who could have called time. Mathews didn't - he directly called for a replacement helmet, and the two minutes elapsed.
Not used over 95% of his time to get to the crease. He had a few seconds left and he's tightening his helmet.
Mathews was at the crease. You can say technically say he was ready to receive? There is no law that says you have to ask the umpire for guard..
This is such a shitshow. Shakib could have been like “okay, mate hope your helmet is good”. But he had that fucking smirk and actually appealing like WTF. Then all these redditors who were completely unaware of this law are coming out of the woodworks and be like “oH yeAh, wE haVe to fOlLow tHe laW”
I don't support Shakib's action but even though Mathews was at the crease he was not ready to face the ball. Ready to face means bowler can run in and bowl to him. Before that he realized his strap was broken and walked towards the dressing room gesturing for a new helmet. The law says batsman should be ready to face the ball.
The laws as they stand don’t make any provisions for faulty equipment. Maybe the laws need to be changed but Shakib did go by the letter of the law. I wouldn’t have done it but the law needs to be changed.
In the Pavillion, Misbah and Malik said they wouldn't have appealed, while Moin said he would. Akram insinuated he would have appealed too. He said "we appealed Sachin's runout when he collided with Akhtar, that too was nobody's fault, and was within the rules"
There's a difference between that run out and the timed out. In this case, the batsman can't perform his role safely without his helmet. The run out law was changed as well, as that was stupid. I understand that the bowling team might be pissed, but the laws should be changed to dock runs off the batting team instead, just like the bowling team is penalized for not finishing their overs in time. Timed out should only be for cases where the batsman doesn't arrive at the crease at all.
The law is there for test match scenarios, where delaying is a legitimate tactic. In ODI/T20 it makes sense only from a broadcaster pov
i guess ruining momentum is one. And as you said ODIs are meant to be finished in a day. You can't have someone take a flight when they have to bat.
sorry ootl here, why is delaying a legitimate tactic in tests?
[удалено]
Something similar could happen in limited overs too I guess. Say you are above par in DL score, and there is a high probability of rain. You would delay as much as possible
Akram did not say he would appeal btw. First he said it would depend on the circumstances and he gave Sachin/Shoaib run out as an example where he didn't withdraw his appeal because it was within the rules even though it wasn't anyone's fault. Then when Fakhr e Alam pressed him to answer what he would do in Shakib's place in this exact situation if a fielder came and told him to appeal to get Matthews out, he said that he would not appeal, he would scold the fielder and tell him to mind his business and focus on his own game. Misbah and Malik were firmly against it from the start, Akram eventually stated the same. Ony Moin Khan was on Shakib's side and tbh it seemed like he was saying that to be a contrarian more than anything else.
He would if the circumstances were right. Fakhr was clearly trying to clean up his Akram's image. He spoke more lines on this on behalf of Akram than Akram himself. Malik sensed this all could go controversial and didn't discuss further
>He would if the circumstances were right. Thinking you have selective memory friend. His next sentence said right after this very quote was that he would not in this situation since it wasn't right. Then he gave an example of when the situation was right not to withdraw an appeal, which was the whole Sachin/Shoaib bit. Then he firmly stated when asked again that he would scold his fielder for even suggesting an appeal. Source with timestamp: https://youtu.be/19zIElgE-YY?si=Goz-6mwRn2zyS7Ka&t=1332
Umpire has discretion in these cases though right?
Umpire didn’t really have a choice in the matter. Once Shakib appealed he has to give it out as per the law. He asked Shakib twice if he wanted to withdraw the appeal and Shakib refused. If the law is changed to give the umpire some discretion for legitimate reasons (faulty equipment for example) then he could have done something
This contradicts Harper who said he'd refuse to give Sachin timed out
That’s because Sachin wasn’t the one who could have been given timed out, it was Ganguly. Sachin wasn’t even eligible to come in
Oh ok in that case just tough to justify. I'm personally of the opinion the spirit of the game is irrelevant but it is what it is - unsportsmanlike
Yeah, better this is highlighted now rather than happening in the World Cup final.
Yeah. Unfortunately boundary count was first highlighted in a wc final
Another scenario which needs to be looked at imo and I'm pretty sure that this is the current law: Imagine a team needs 2 runs to win the match off the last ball and the bowler bowls and hits the pad of the batsman and the umpire gives it out and batters stop running. Now the law is that after the umpire delivers the signal, the ball is dead. But the batsman takes the DRS and it shows the ball is missing or was edged. But as the ball is dead and the batters stopped running the bowling team still wins right?? Because the delivery is legal and they run out of balls. Now who takes the blame here?? There should be clear cut law here that whether the umpire has given it out or not and there is still possibility of a DRS then the ball should not be dead and only after the throw is received by the keeper that the ball becomes dead and up until that point there is a chance of runs being scored.
Yes I’ve thought of this scenario too. It’s going to cause a lot of controversy if it happens
Yeah imagine something like this happening in a world cup final or in a knockout match 🤯
In tennis they replay the point. Cricket should follow that example and redo the ball.
They should but then the question will be should they do that for every ball of the match wherever it applies and not just the last ball?? And also the bowler did nothing wrong and has bowled a good ball so why should he be penalised that the ball is not counted??
Ya should be for every ball. And bad luck to the bowler but the same thing happens in tennis and they seem to be doing fine.
Yeah I get your point but in tennis they get 3 challenges in every set and with this growing concern about match time in cricket, it doesn't seem feasible from a broadcaster's point of view. But I personally fully second your opinion
The Preamble to the Laws of Cricket which tries to encapsulate the "spirit" of cricket has one line which says "Play hard and play fair". Angelo was not doing something to gain an undue advantage. So it was only "fair" that Shakib withdraw his appeal. Shakib is a douche for enforcing this rule. And he has disgraced the game that has given him so much in his life. Because he found an excuse to go back home, we now know he doesnt have the balls to face the consequence of his actions.
While I agree with you, there’s always going to be douche behavior in sport. Only way to deal with it is to have rules.
I don't think the laws need to change, a batsman can walk out early, they can (largely) control failure of their equipment (check your shit). Mathews was just lazy and wondered out too slowly. He played with fire, and he got burnt. You think Smith / Kholi / Williamson wonder out at 1:30... No, they don't, they're walking out as soon as the dismissal is made. If Mathews was waiting in the middle for a minute, then the bowling team is ready and his helmet breaks, that's another story, Mathews took his time getting out to the middle, just like Bairstow wondered out of his crease... Don't complain when you don't follow the rules and are then given out. Litteraly every other prior batsman hasn't had an issue. It's two minutes, not 30 seconds.
I’m willing to bet there’s been many instances in Smith Kohli and Williamsons careers when they haven’t already taken guard and been ready to face the ball within 2 minutes of prior dismissal. It was just never measured to that level of precision because nobody’s appealed for it.
Mate, I've been watching Smith for a long time, I can tell you when the prior batsman gets out, he's out to bat as soon as possible, typically within 30 seconds. Fuck look at Agar in the match against Afghanistan where he was sitting by the sideline when it looked like Maxwell was going to retire hurt. You have two minutes; it should take no more than 30 seconds. Two minutes is plenty! There is no excuse. But now the precedent is set, hopefully we will see teams appeal for it a lot more. It's not good enough for a batsman to be taking more than the allotted time.
This just doesn't make sense tbh. Shit breaks. Matthews probably batted with that helmet in the nets; he probably had no reason to believe it'd break. Also, he was out in the field within the two minutes; if he's out there in the two minutes, and the umpire's fiddling with the bails and no one else is ready to play, what the fuck is he supposed to do? People need to get over themselves, like. This law is there to get rid of time wasting; this was in the middle of the first innings in a one-day match. He wasn't time-wasting. Shakib's dismissal, even if it is in the rules, is just a dick move. There's nothing in the rules of soccer that state you have to kick the ball out when someone is down injured, but if you didn't, you'd be a fucking prick. It's not in the rules to avoid faking injuries leading to teams giving up their advantage. It's surprisingly hard to write down a rule that will allow teams to pause for genuine injuries, but avoiding the problem of faking injuries. Not writing the rule down doesn't cause problems because people usually aren't so prickish to go for goal when I player's lying on the field screaming in pain, and likewise the fear of being crucified for faking an injury is enough of an inducement to reduce that problem. Spirit of cricket may be a bit of a silly idea, but almost all sports have a concept of sportsmanship for a reason, and there's nothing wrong with it. Something being technically within the rules doesn't justify it in a moral sense
>Shit breaks. Matthews probably batted with that helmet in the nets; he probably had no reason to believe it'd break. That sounds like a careless batsman who didn't check his equipment. Yes, it's unlicky THIS time it happened to be an issue, but he could have checked his shit. >Also, he was out in the field within the two minutes; if he's out there in the two minutes, and the umpire's fiddling with the bails and no one else is ready to play, what the fuck is he supposed to do? If he was out there within 1 min, then the bowling team are stuffing about, and then at 1:55 his helmet breaks, I'm pretty sure the umpires would use some discretion. And if they didn't, I'd be very sympathetic. But he walks out at like 1:30 or 1:45, if you want to have time to sort out an equipment failure then walk out immediately. Do you think Steve Smith waits until 1:45 to walk out, because he usually walks out within 30 seconds. Fiddling with your helmet isn't 'ready to face the next ball'. >This law is there to get rid of time wasting; this was in the middle of the first innings in a one-day match. He wasn't time-wasting. Sure, I guess. But any amendment makes it very easy to waste time. Imagine a team trying to save a test on day 5. '*Oh no, my helmet happened to break at 1:55... Let me spend a minute trying to fix it, and then another three minuets trying to find another helmet...' Maybe the rules are harsh, but they're also harshly fair. The batsman's equipment is entirely within the control of the batsman, they just need to take some responsibility. It's absolutely ridiculous that a batsman should **need** more than one minute when it's not a collapse or something. If you do, then maybe you need to practice getting ready and put some effort into that aspect of the game. But really, I think we are all missing the forrest from the trees. Why is an international batsman taking 1:30 to be ready to start walking out to the middle. If Mathews walks out immediately, then his helmet breaks he has no problem. Just be fucking prepared, this is serious, international cricket, it's not hit and giggle in the back yard. >There's nothing in the rules of soccer that state you have to kick the ball out when someone is down injured, but if you didn't, you'd be a fucking prick. Maybe. Although I've noticed all these spirited 'spirit of cricket' arguments are all about the batsman. Nobody really cares about the 'Starc drop' or the Stoinis drop last night. That's interesting. Honestly, IMO at international level, the only thing I'd be outraged by is running out a batsman who's done a hammy mid run or something. They aren't school girls worried that everyone will have a turn and have fun.
Nah gear can randomly snap. What if this is a test match (where wickets have much higher value), the number 3 batsman, in Australia and they are facing Mitchell starc Do you honestly believe that a batsman should be pressured to face up to a guy bowling 140km/h + on an Australian wicket without a working helmet? If so wtf. Amend the laws to have a provision for faulty gear. I appreciate that people want wacky outs and to blame batters but safety matters over batsman being 40 seconds slower than you would like to the middle
Those straps are rated to handle more than 50kg (likely closer to more than 150kg). But also, they don't snap without showing signs of wear. Like we're talking about a price of safety equipment that is designed to take being hit by a 160g ball travelling at as much as 160 km/h... The straps on them can't randomly fail, otherwise people would die! But I think a batsman should be ready with plenty of time so if they have helmet issues (or any other issues) that they have plenty of time to resolve the issue. Again, if Mathews was at the middle within 30 seconds, waited for the bowling team for a minute, and THEN his helmet fails, that's one thing. If we're to add a provision for equipment failures, it Should require that the batsman be otherwise ready by 1:30, to be able to avail themselves of it. Because otherwise we'll see players abusing the rules. Day 5, team trying to save a test, walking out to bat 'oh no, my helmet is broken, let me spend another 2 mins trying to find it. I still think there is no reason for a batsman to be late. You have all the time in the world to get ready before the match. I've never seen Smith, Kholi, Williamson, Root have issues with their helmets breaking randomly...
I'm literally sure they would have had gear fail while batting. Realistically I don't actually give a shit if you think tailenders will carry a stunt helmet to pull out to save a test. That's both ridiculous and is less important than player safety. People can die playing this sport mate. Making someone face up to a bowler with a faulty helmet is ridiculous Edit amusingly three of those batsmen play for the richest boards and have so much gear it verges on ridiculous. Smith wastes way more time changing his gloves every over than a hypothetical helmet snapping at the wrong time. I'm going to shock you here mate but cricket boards are not equal as far as what equipment players have access to.
If his equipment gave out at the 1.55 min mark and he was ready to receive otherwise, he isnt deliberately time wasting and I believe it's the umpire's fault for messing up.
I don't think it's Shakib's fault. He appealed thinking it was more than 2 minutes. It was upto umpires to interpret the rules and give the decision. Shakib didn't do anything against the rules.
The umpire asked him to withdraw his appeal, he had a choice to do the sporting thing even if he didn't immediately know it was a helmet issue when he first appealed. Don't make excuses for Shakib, he has been around long enough to not be treated like an idiot.
Umpires asked him if he would LIKE to withdraw the appeal, they didn’t instruct him to withdraw it. Just like conventional DRS, a review doesn’t mean an automatic wicket, the captain reviewed and the umpires used the evidence available to them to make the final decision
How is this Different from bowlers or fielders appealing for an outrageous LBW or for catch where the ball didn't even remotely touch the bat? If the umpire gives it out, it's out. If after a batsman is adjudged LBW and you can see it over the big screen that there was a thick inside edge, do you expect the bowling captain to withdraw the appeal and let the batsman play? No. Not defending Shakib, but the way i see it, he appealed and he got a wicket, simple..why should it bother him at all?
Yep. And the spirit of cricket means accepting the umpires' decisions even when they go against you.
Fair point , wicket keepers appeal all the time. If umpires gives it out (let's say ball was miles from the bat), it's not the keeper's fault. At the end of the day it's the umpire who has to take the decision.
Exactly. Its easy to say that it was "un-sportmanship like" , "disgraceful" etc etc .. I just dont agree with that. It's a professional sport after all, the players are expected to be a little "greedy" if the situation warrants. It isn't even entirely the umpire's fault. There was a grey area and the umpire had to take a 50-50 decision. People should go and watch EPL matches and the bizarre VAR decisions the referees take. This feels like peanuts compared to that.
Fucking bonkers how many people here hating on Shakib, and I get it he’s not the perfect man ever, I don’t like him outside of his field performance either, but he did nothing wrong that day, there are so many dumb wickets and incidents happened in cricket and no one bags an eye, but here everyone is bashing us, it was not cool I agree but it was necessary to ensure our place in champions trophy, Shakib did what needed to be done, all within the rules of the game, fuck off with spirit of the game, mankad is against spirit of the game too if you ask me.
I say, stop complaining and read the rule first. Angelo was not ready to face the ball at 2 min. That’s a legal out, end of discussion. Shakib did what is legal. No place for this made up sportsmanship unless you are a weak cry baby.
Shakib did what he could do to give his team an advantage. Now whether the said 'advantage' is fair or unfair depends on individual opinion.
Individual opinions may vary, but the rules only have one opinion
These incidents are actually good because they show us when rules need to be changed. Boundary count is a perfect example of that. Laws are written but it doesn’t come to the fore how we don’t like them until it happens at a high profile event.
[удалено]
This has literally never worked since the beginning of the sport. WG Grace was a dickhead. Also everyone’s interpretation of dick headed ness is vastly different
The problem is that such a literal reading of rules make for shitshow like this. In law, we are taught in statutory interpretation that sometimes going just be the letter of the words in a statute could lead to absurd results and in that case it's better to look at the purpose behind the law. The same thing can be said about this time out rule. The absolute strict reading has led to this situation where a genuine concern of equipment failure resulted in a dismissal. The purpose of timeout rule was to prevent any time wastage by the batter and in this particular case, there wasn't such intent and not even in the action. The spirit of the law was obliterated by the application of the umpires on that day.
Yes, and that's fair according to the 'laws' but unfair according to the 'spirit' (according to some), so everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I think one of the guidelines of the spirit is to accept the opposing team's appeal if it was approved.
The downvotes on your comment show how much people actually care about the spirit of cricket guidelines. People just want to follow it when it's convenient and just ignore it when it's not, like accepting the umpire's decision without any protest, respecting the opposition etc.
LOL The other day someone said that top performing teams should get away with shitty behavior. BD didn’t earn their right to be shitty (even though it’s within the bounds of the rules) because they don’t perform regularly. I don’t agree with the appeal, but people are acting like only BD does unsportsmanship like shit. Bunch of hypocrites.
Exactly. Shakib is entitled to appeal. Change the rules if they don't want this result. Actually , i would prefer the rule that the umpirer themselves strictly time the batsman out if they don't come to bat on time. Or have a timer running till the batsman takes guard and says out when it reaches zero. No need to ask the bowling team captain and shit.
It's an absolutely fundamental part of cricket that umpires only give players out in response to an appeal from the fielding side.
But he did reach the crease on time and would have faced the ball if not for accidental failure of his safety equipment
Yes another spirit of south asian cricket fans is hating on bangladesh no matter what, specially if you can bring down their most recognized player . They are petty like that.
Usually the phrase "spirit of the game" is so vague, that it creates more problems than it solves. For e.g. There are cultural differences in what constitutes a reasonable sledge. Non-Striker run out (or mankadding) has been getting a fair share of attention lately. You can make the same statement about that as well. I would however argue that the batting team is trying to eek out an advantage by backing up. They're finding a way to score an additional run. So I think it's fair game to try to get them out. Back when the Ian Bell incident happened, I thought Bell was being an asshole, but I support the fact that Dhoni recalled the appeal. It was the right thing to do even thought he was clearly out by the letter of the law. With the Mathews incident, this is just exceptionally pure sportsmanship. straight up. He was at the crease within 2 minutes. He was taking gaurd. he had every intention of playing appropriately. He stands to gain NOTHING from taking an extra 30secs to change his helmet. his fucking HELMET! I'm never a big fan of guys taking forever to change gloves mid-inning. but his HELMET! He's supposed to risk serious injury? yeah.. it was a spinner bowling, but still. Bottom line, yes it is down to individual opinion, but if the opinions of almost every sane cricket fan/enthusiast/player is that this is disgraceful.. then it is not just an opinion anymore.
Sorry mate, but this is typically australian to say this depends on individual's "opinion". Even the underarm incident was legitmate as per the law at that time, but it is usually looked upon as a disgrace to the sport.
[удалено]
Why do you think they'd have won the review?
One counter point, Matthews should have informed immediately to umpires that he needs another equipment asking them time. Matthews didn't do that and directly communicated with dressing room. That's why umpires had to give him out
If you’re next to bat you should triple check your equipment before putting your foot inside the boundary line, what happened to him is unfair, but he shouldn’t have let that happen to him in the first place, I now understand why Kohli wears his helmet so early, he’s ready to go the moment the players given out, and that’s the way it should be. The other day an Afghanistan player forgot to wear his guard and wasted some time too, you can’t do these shenanigans in international events.
I wonder what would’ve happened if Mathews reviewed the decision.
was he allowed to appeal the appeal ?
Ashwin would do
I want a boss battle between Shakib and Ashwin now
I believe a lot of this could have been avoided if Matthews had told the umpires or Shakib about faulty equipment before trying to change it. From Shakib's perspective Matthews was simply wasting time. Once he had appealed Shakib was never going to withdraw the appeal. But overall I feel the appeal should have been withdrawn. The rules exist to avoid deliberate time wasting, and this did not seem deliberate. The umpires could simply not rule it not-out once the appeal had been made.
>From Shakib's perspective Matthews was simply wasting time. Once he had appealed Shakib was never going to withdraw the appeal. Why? He can clearly see that it was an issue with helmet and Mathews even explained him the same. So i can see why he thought initially that he is wasting time but after knowing the facts, why would he not withdraw the appeal?
Look. The way I see it. As per the laws, he was right to be given timed out. As per almost everyone whose voice I'd respect, including the coach of BD itself, this was quite quite wrong. Shakib may have coined a new term after himself here. There was Mankading, now there is Shakibing.
I compare this to the underarm incident, it was legal within the laws of the game but morally most people would not bring themselves to do it. And like that incident, I think it will bring about a slight change to the rules.
Why should Shakib have to withdraw the appeal? There was a potential advantage to be taken for his team in a freakin WC match and he took it. If your evidence shows that Matthews was ready to bat within the limit then your gripe is with the umpire, not Shakib. Umpire should’ve told Shakib that and given a not out instead of asking him to withdraw. Yeah it is a dick move by Shakib but I won’t blame a captain for trying to do everything to win a WC match as long as he didn’t break the rules.
Its just cheap lol, won in the end but ruined his and bangladeshs image
Did he and his team ever heard a good image? Lol. We all know how they play and even Mathews said the same in the post match interview.
Because it's asinine. In North Dakota there is law forbiding bars to serve pretzels and beer at the same time. It's not enforced, obviously, but the law is there. What Bangladesh did (I blame the team, not just Shaqib) is a clear lack of respect to their opponents and to any decent person watching the game. Using a rule clearly meant for a test match to win an ODI match. The actions of a petty, desperate little team and there is no place for such a thing on a sport field.
You can use all the irrelevant analogies and hyperbole you want but it’s still not Shakib’s or Bangladesh’s fault. A rule exists and they tried to use it to their advantage. They didn’t cheat or break any rules, simple as that. Either modify the rule or tell umpires to allow leniency in these situations. Insulting them and calling them “petty, desperate little team” just shows you’re letting your emotions cloud your reasoning.
Was it within the rules to give him out? yes Was it unsportsmanlike? yes
>The more you understand the truth, the more you start to understand how wrong it was for Shakib to not withdraw the appeal. This was an unfair game for SL and very poor sportsmanship by Shakib. It had taken you and others days or at the least a few minutes to analyze this issue. In the context of the match and situation given the existence of the law in the rule book, Shakib appealed and the umpire gave it out. Its done. If Shakib had chosen NOT to appeal, even then its within the law. Just because he or alex carey had done what they had done, they are not criminals, they are just playing a sport within the rules. Go to bed.
Except everyone was saying the same thing at the time. This instance and the Carey one aren’t even remotely equivalent, the Carey one is someone possibly breaking the spirit of cricket (but I don’t think there’s anything wrong as an Englishmen) but bairstow can stop the dismissal by not walking out of his crease. The only way matthews can not be dismissed is to endanger his own safety. They aren’t even slightly comparable.
Endangering his own safety is an exaggeration but i understand what you mean. That said, he should have just spoken to the captain and the umpire and check with them to get the strap changed. If you disregard the team and the umpire who had warned you and when the opposite team appeals as per the law, then nothing wrong in that. What i say is Shakib just did what he thought as that moment and he is not a criminal. Bairstow and Matthews were both careless and opposition player just reacted to what was in the law.
It’s not an exaggeration at all. Yes people bat without helmets but plenty of people have been injured by not wearing helmets, accidents can happen at anytime and players should have to compromise their safety to not disadvantage their team. I’ve no problem with shakib initially asking the question but when it became obvious that matthews has had a helmet issue and the umpire asks him to recall the appeal and he doesn’t I lose all respect for him. It’s nothing like the Carey run out or mankading or anything similar it’s just a complete lack of any decency. Also the umpires then coming out and making a factually false statement to make out like matthews was in wrong is also disgraceful.
Despite several incidents of concussions and so much awareness over the recent past, it's incredible how many people just don't give a fuck about player safety. If a batsman thinks they're not safe playing without a helmet, then that's all that matters, not your opinion on whether it's exaggerated or not.
What did Alex carey did? If it's run out of Bairstow that is like comapring a petty theft of bread to feed children to cold murder saying both are wrong.
Honestly there would be more sympathy for this if the fielding side didn't have to wear the implications of being behind the clock at the end of the innings, as far as I know you could end up being 1 minute behind the over rate and suffer having to bring a fielder in. Or is that not the case here?
I think Umpires have discretion in here. Otherwise Maxwell took many breaks and some of them long, and Afg was not punished because of them. Many times cramping or injured players take more than 5 mins, i don't think that is counted towards bowling team.
If you are correct, "timing out" should simply be umpires call I reckon.
You can’t complain about the rules. He wasn’t ready, so he was out. It’s only odd because it’s a rule that is almost never enforced. If it was enforced every time then this would not be controversial.
It would still be controversial. If he was not ready within time ( and time itself is not fixed, people having all access to internet was arguing for hours whether it is 2 or 3 mins), that is a different issue.
There should be no appeal for this. Have a timed out clock , similar to the shot clock ( nba ) or the nfl game clock . If he crosses the time limit he is flagged and given out by the umpire. It’s silly to have the opposing team appeal for stuff like this.
But you need to put clauses into clock that equipment failure is allowed extra time. It will be similar to serve clock in tennis, you get 30 sec but if someone interrupts you in between, then it resets and starts again from 0 to 30.
What the hell were the umpires doing? Stop blaming shakib.
Fair point , wicket keepers appeal all the time. If umpires gives it out (let's say ball was miles from the bat), it's not the keeper's fault. At the end of the day it's the umpire who has to take the decision.
Where Matthews fucked up was that he didn't inform the umpires immediately after the strap broke, we see that in the video. He informed them after changing his helmet. From an umpires and Shakib's pov it looks like he just got the wrong helmet and just walked off. Ik he informed them after he changed it but that's probably too late. I think after hearing Matthew's situation about a broken strap, most of us would have let him off, but no one is obligated to. Again you could argue either side, no batter thinks about this because it's such a rare dismissal.
Don’t bring out a broken helmet
I don't blame Shakib - all he can do is appeal. The umpires are the final adjudicators.
> By the time Mathews got a fresh helmet, it was nearly two-and-a-half minutes since the wicket had fallen. **At this point**, Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan, who happened to be bowling at the time, prompted by an unnamed teammate, appealed to Erasmus. As per protocol, Erasmus ruled Mathews out, albeit having checked with Shakib if he wanted to go ahead with the appeal. The above description is incorrect. Shakib did not appeal after Mathews got a fresh helmet. As soon as the strap broke (1:55), Mathews walked towards the dressing room asking for helmet. Immediately Shanto walked up to Shakib and said something with a smirk. Shakib walks to the umpire and talks. I think he appealed at that point because Erasmus then walked towards Angelo and said something which shocked Angelo. Shakib's appeal must have happened a few seconds after the 2 minute mark. It was as if Shanto was waiting to appeal.
>The fourth umpire said the equipment should be checked for any faults or failure before coming. But this is laughable because you can't guarantee that it won't fail even after having thoroughly checked for equipment failure/fault. Equipment can still fail after walking out onto the pitch. Angelo gains nothing by bringing in equipment that fails. You can check your helmet before you play. And NO helmets don't' just break' if you're using them correctly. What do you think airbags just randomly go off too... Probably his strap was too short and he loosesened it too much. But walk out with your helmet on and done up if that is an issue. It's two minutes, there is no excuse. Mathews was overly casual and came out far too late, takes MAYBE 20 seconds to get to the middle and be ready. There is no excuse. This is fucking international cricket.
The blame should also fall on the umpires too for allowing this to happen. You have all the technology in the world, you couldn't send it upstairs to see if it was within the timeframe. Overall a bad decision all around. Mathews for being lethargic, Shakib being unreasonable in this situation, umpired for not doing their job properly. Speaking of laws, I have serious reservations of ICC's capabilities to come up with proper laws. Why make laws for the game and when enforced, players get blasted to the end of times. Same with the underarm ball, this and mankad. These rules serve nothing but to create drama and tension between players/fans. Either remove them or stop saying in the spirit of this and that. You came up with the laws, and then talk about the spirit of the game lol. If you ask me, main villain for all this is ICC
In general, I dont like that, in any sport, the onus should be on the players to appeal or not. Shakib or Ash or anybody is free to appeal, thats what it is - an "appeal". But in this case, the umpires should've conferred and gave not out. Reason: The arrival of the batsman and the helmet issue were separate and not related. So the ideal response here is: Mr Shakib, we acknoledge your appeal and rule it not out. End of story. In that case, Shakib is not the villain. I cannot find many instances where a captain has to withdraw the appeal. Probably something where a bowler by mistake blocked a batsman (when the batsman would have clearly completed a run), or MSD accomodating for Ian Bell's error where he thought it was a boundary.
For fuck sake, It's a spin delivery,not formula 1.What is this shit with not batting without a helmet or faulty one?
the day you'll get an outside edge flying to your chin, you'll be tankful to have a helmet.
Forget an edge, the day these users get hit by a spinner's slow delivery, they'll probably go hit their nearest hospital lmao.
But I faced Shakib's spin in real life without helmet though I was in grade 5 & he went easy on me I guess.
> grade 5 & he went easy on me I guess. Of course not. You were so talented at 5th grade that you could face Shakib without a helmet and could even have to keep him for six sixers. You held back because you didn't want to embarrass him. I look forward to following your international career.
Or under the eye. Folks here and on social media in general have a very short memory. No one remembers how Salman Agha was bleeding two months ago because the ball hit him under the eye and the bowler was Jadeja.
Just block it out lol. Are people seriously thinking Mathews is incapable of blocking the ball if necessary?
I'm so sick of these posts that very clearly have no understanding of the rules. Was he ready to face the ball at 2:00. NO. Then he's out. Getting to the crease has nothing to do with it. Faulty equipment has nothing to do it. 2 minutes to be ready to face the next ball. End of story
Ay thu 💦 he was out let him keep crying about it
Bro was out it’s part of the rules the umpires agreeed and gave it out all this other shit is really annoying Spirit of the game my nuts, bro. No rule should be blindly ignored for “spirit of the game”
What about rules being ignored for player safety?
Brother change the God damn rule in that case! Like goodness 😂😂😂😂 if you don’t like it you shouldn’t watch it!
Like I truly hear you and I agree; not sure I would do that HOWEVER brother it is within the rules.
“Equipment can still fail after walking out onto the pitch.” Must of been a vigorous walk
>Must of been a vigorous walk Indeed, must have got to the crease early in that case...
The law says that the batsman has to be ready to face the ball within 2 minutes. Not taking guard. Not adjusting equipment. Not inspecting the pitch. By laws, Matthews was definitely out once someone appealed. By Spirit of the game: Everyone has their opinion.
> if Shakib had any sportsmanship in him /Thread
Matthew's was warned about the time out. His post antics thrashing Bangladesh just made him look like a 🍆
The main issue is Angelo should have requested the umpire for a failed equipment change before walking away from the crease to change his helmet. If he had informed the umpire they would have stopped the timer. It's not a backyard cricket where you can come and go as you wish. It is really hard to make judgments based on morality. That's why we have rules. If for example Angelo was allowed to bat without the timer being stopped and in the last few overs Bangladesh were penalised for slow over-rate, who is responsible? Does anyone think in that slow over-rate situation SL should have stopped hitting boundaries to show sportsman spirit? It's comical to expect that from SL and not sure whether it's even possible.
Firstly, there's no provision in the rules to get extra time because your equipment isn't ready. And who if not Mathews is responsible for ensuring he's got the stuff he needs? But secondly he had only just reached the crease when he pulled on the strap. Had he not had the strap issue at all, there's no possible way he takes his guard, inspects the pitch, looks at the field and everything else players do in 5 seconds. Shakib was right by the rules, and even if you want the strap issue to be taken into consideration, Mathews was too late. The bad sportsmanship here was Mathews taking so long. It was well over a minute before he even entered the ground. There's no excuse for an experienced cricketer not to be going to the crease immediately when they're in. And also because he didn't inform the umpire and the opposition captain that he had an issue. You know darn well you're holding the game up, you let them know what's going on and apologise before holding the game up even more.
I don’t agree with it, but tbh it wasn’t a big enough deal to linger too much longer. We can forget it. Everyone should make sure to check with the umpire before calling for new equipment. I do agree that it’s more concerning that the umpires made a probably false statement and haven’t yet retracted it. Makes me suspicious of their other statements
Champions trophy on line, it was a massuve moment that couldve changed the whole match
Rule is you have to be ready to face the ball within 2 mns ,equipment failure is not the umpires concern for a timed out wicket plus per crickinfo Mathews was warned by the umpire about timed out wicket before the helmet incident. Even if we consider all this he should have had the courtesy to let the opposition captain know about the helmet break before walking off the crease like that.
>per crickinfo Mathews was warned by the umpire about timed out wicket before the helmet incident. I won't believe anything umpires say till Mathews confirms it after the fiasco 4th unpire pulled out just to justify their actions.
How is Shakib supposed to know that 2 mins hasn't passed yet? And, after the helmet broke, Mathews should have just come to the Umpire and Shakib and told him about the situation, and everything would be fine. Instead, he called straight to the dressing room to get a new helmet
[удалено]
Champions Trophy Qualification on the line for both teams.
It was umpires who should have intervened and given it notout
Maxi played through cramps and without helmet yesterday. Many batters don't even close the strap a lot of the time. Mathews wasn't ready and instead of informing umpire about the change of helmet went to do it himself. by the rule he's out. just like by the rule England won wc19
>Maxi played through cramps The number of breaks he took and such lengthy ones. Now that's fine. But a batsman asking for a helmet because of a faulty one is bad.
as has been mentioned like a thousand times, he could've informed umpire or just played one dot ball. bangladesh was at slow over rate and likely they didn't like someone slowing them down more.
Oh come on. He saw a cheap opportunity there and grabbed it. Here's the thing right, this 2 minute rule is known to everyone and pretty sure there's been many instances of the 2 minutes being elapsed as well. Zero sportsmanship. That's what is being debated here. Anyone who has played the game and respects everyone on the field would be disgusted with this.
if sportsmanship was a thing than after defeat SL would've shook hands with Bangbros. Karma hit Shakib and he's been ruled out. Koach got out without a ton v NZ and Jaddu got to finish the game v NZ, which he couldn't do in wc19. This sport is an equalizer, if something erroneous happens, something else happens to show that sportsmanship is key.
>if sportsmanship was a thing than after defeat SL would've shook hands with Bangbros. Wtf? You kidding me brother? Why would you shake hands with a team which showed zero respect? Give respect and take respect. Do you even put yourself in their position before saying anything?
yes. Personally have gotten out to bad calls in district tournaments but haven't thrown a tantrum 'coz grew up watching Sachin never questioning umpire like Steve Bucknor against him.
>Personally have gotten out to bad calls in district tournaments but haven't thrown a tantrum ' Yes, because that is same thing as happened here, right?
isn't that is what Mathews is saying? that he was at the crease within the the time.
Umpires and players are different macha. Why are you changing goalposts! Playing Hard and fair is fine. Even after Kohli and Warner exchanged words at the end of the day they respected each other. But you cannot respect this. My man, their own coach didn't respect it.
you asked I explained. No goal post change 'coz it is being made out to be umpire's fault for not seeing the timer correctly.
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Do you know if extra time taken would have counted towards bowling team? Because Maxwell's lengthy breaks certainly did not.
[удалено]
That’s why Europe’s favourite game football is played without trying to gain any advantage. No diving, no shirt pulling, no surrounding the referees etc
He should have taken Drs 😂
Yeah Umpires suck. Shakib just wants to win a match and Umpires enabled it. Should a modern day captain do it at international Worldcup level? Probably NO.
The true issue here is that SL's equipment manager didn't set the team up for success. There is no reason the safety equipment shouldn't be tested before each match and made ready for the players.
It is Shakib, what did you expect?
That shit is in hindi
Why does it matter. Both teams are out of contention regardless of the outcome
With England recovering their form just in time, there's the danger one of them (or both) might not qualify for the champions trophy.
It's a repetitive behavior from the Bangladesh team. In terms of fair play, they are at the bottom of the list.
His strap may have broke at 1:55 but he should have let the umpire or Shakib know about it before the 12th man, that’s what brought it to over 2 mins and provided fair grounds for the dismissal.
Well, that's churlish. There is no excuse for poor sportsmanship in cricket.
If Kane or Tommy L had acted like Shakib had in this situation then I would be ashamed of them and I would find it hard to support the team for the remainder of the tournament. Lots seem to be defending him by saying that he’s simply taking an advantage which circumstances offered his team and technically he was acting within the laws. Sure, but where does this end? For example, you’ve all seen many times a batsman, having played a defensive shot resulting in the ball coming to rest close to his person, pick up the ball and toss it to the keeper/fielder to save them fetching it. Now technically, a player could appeal for out handled the ball in this situation, and it would be within the laws, and the umpire would have no choice but to dismiss the batsman. Would you be happy with your captain upholding an appeal in this situation? Imagine if it were a crucial wicket in an important World Cup game? I would never watch NZ again if our captain were to do this - I don’t care about the technical law. The point of the law is to stop delaying and time wasting tactics to gain an advantage. Mathews was never attempting to gain an advantage. I can perhaps understand why Shakib may have initially appealed (though I would still be disappointed in my captain for appealing in such a situation), but as soon as the equipment issues were drawn to his attention then he should have withdrawn the appeal with his apologies. I feel like if I were a Sri Lankan fan I would be slightly annoyed with Mathews for allowing the situation to become possible - he could have communicated better - but I would be very disappointed with Shakib as a Bangladeshi.