Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The 2023 ICC Men's Cricket World Cup
Comments
-
69-7 off 200
-
83 all out. India win by 243 runs0
-
Oh dear oh dear!!! Bangladesh have appealed for Angelo Matthews being timed out. Matthews walked in but realised that the strap on his helmet was broken so asked for a new helmet. Having not faced a ball he is given out. Absolutely ridiculous because had this happened at any other time he would not have been given out.0
-
That's an absolute disgrace. Mathews must be furious. And, frankly, so should every right-thinking cricket fan. Bangladesh have made a huge mistake. Because, surely everyone knows, if you're going to time someone out, it should always, always be an Australian.2
-
That's far far far worse than any mankad, the Carey/Bairstow thing etc. Shakib is a c***, tbf we knew this already but fuck him0
-
Thems the rules.Addick Addict said:Oh dear oh dear!!! Bangladesh have appealed for Angelo Matthews being timed out. Matthews walked in but realised that the strap on his helmet was broken so asked for a new helmet. Having not faced a ball he is given out. Absolutely ridiculous because had this happened at any other time he would not have been given out.
He should have got to the crease & got ready to face his first ball. Then he could have stopped the bowler in his run up & changed his helmet then.1 -
The Umpires really should have some discretion here. We all know the Law in question but how many times is it obvious that batsmen are calling for a change of gloves, a drink etc etc and nothing is done. This is not a situation where anyone could legitimately argue that Matthews was trying to gain an advantage.
Looking forward to Matthews bowling at Shakib. He might just find an extra yard or two of pace or even miss his length by a long way!0 -
Next ball Asalanka faced off Shakib he smashed him for six, lot of rage in the shot0
-
The fielding side doesn't have to appeal for that decision to be made. Shakib probably did appeal but Matthews could have been given out anyway by the Umpires. What this will do is put more pressure on Umpires to give more players out in those circumstances.
40.1.1 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.
0 -
These incidents really sort out the 'those are the rules, dummy' blow-ins from the people who actually understand cricket1
- Sponsored links:
-
Just to add that the regulations for this World Cup change that time limit to two minutesAddick Addict said:The fielding side doesn't have to appeal for that decision to be made. Shakib probably did appeal but Matthews could have been given out anyway by the Umpires. What this will do is put more pressure on Umpires to give more players out in those circumstances.
40.1.1 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.0 -
Presumably, it makes a difference if Matthews had asked to change his helmet? The Umpires have a duty of care and had Matthews been hit because he'd been denied the opportunity to change it then they would be, potentially, legally culpable.0
-
I don't think it would. The Law says he had to be ready. It doesn't matter whether he asks permission to exchange his helmet. (For clarity, in this instance he didn't).Addick Addict said:Presumably, it makes a difference if Matthews had asked to change his helmet? The Umpires have a duty of care and had Matthews been hit because he'd been denied the opportunity to change it then they would be, potentially, legally culpable.
He should have asked permission. More importantly, he should have had been using equipment that was fit for purpose.0 -
Does the 2 or three minutes include the walk to the crease ?0
-
That'll give the Aussies ideas.
Next time we play them, they'll have people in the dressing room just there to rush out and grab Jonny Bairstow and stop him getting to the crease on time.1 -
But one really doesn't always know when a strap is imminently going to snap as it did when Matthews tightened it. And there isn't an Umpire on earth, protected by group insurance or not, who will want to leave him or the ICC open to legal action because he is having to take guard with a helmet that isn't secured properly. Philip Hughes died because he wasn't adequately protected. No one wants to be at the centre of that because they refused the batsman the option to change their helmet.Chizz said:
I don't think it would. The Law says he had to be ready. It doesn't matter whether he asks permission to exchange his helmet. (For clarity, in this instance he didn't).Addick Addict said:Presumably, it makes a difference if Matthews had asked to change his helmet? The Umpires have a duty of care and had Matthews been hit because he'd been denied the opportunity to change it then they would be, potentially, legally culpable.
He should have asked permission. More importantly, he should have had been using equipment that was fit for purpose.0 -
Yesbillysboots said:Does the 2 or three minutes include the walk to the crease ?0 -
I think you're confusing being given out in accordance to the Laws and conditions of play with being forced to bat with a broken helmet.Addick Addict said:
But one really doesn't always know when a strap is imminently going to snap as it did when Matthews tightened it. And there isn't an Umpire on earth, protected by group insurance or not, who will want to leave him or the ICC open to legal action because he is having to take guard with a helmet that isn't secured properly. Philip Hughes died because he wasn't adequately protected. No one wants to be at the centre of that because they refused the batsman the option to change their helmet.Chizz said:
I don't think it would. The Law says he had to be ready. It doesn't matter whether he asks permission to exchange his helmet. (For clarity, in this instance he didn't).Addick Addict said:Presumably, it makes a difference if Matthews had asked to change his helmet? The Umpires have a duty of care and had Matthews been hit because he'd been denied the opportunity to change it then they would be, potentially, legally culpable.
He should have asked permission. More importantly, he should have had been using equipment that was fit for purpose.
It would have been moot had Mathews decided to face the first ball. Or even if he'd stopped the bowler in his run up and only then pointed out the broken strap.0 -
If Mathews had walked out to the middle, taken guard, then at the last moment stopped play because of his broken helmet strap, it would have been looked ridiculous.
There's got to be a sensible compromise in such situations.1 -
I am not confusing anything. I know the Laws and the Competition Regulations. The Umpires have the discretion to call "time" in certain circumstances as they would have had to have done during the debate as to whether Matthews was out or not because if they hadn't done so then they would automatically have had to have "timed out" another couple of Sri Lanka batsmen - by the letter of the Law and Competition Regulations. Calling "time" because you fear that a player might be injured or even killed is perfectly legitimate. But Matthews probably should have asked in any event.Chizz said:
I think you're confusing being given out in accordance to the Laws and conditions of play with being forced to bat with a broken helmet.Addick Addict said:
But one really doesn't always know when a strap is imminently going to snap as it did when Matthews tightened it. And there isn't an Umpire on earth, protected by group insurance or not, who will want to leave him or the ICC open to legal action because he is having to take guard with a helmet that isn't secured properly. Philip Hughes died because he wasn't adequately protected. No one wants to be at the centre of that because they refused the batsman the option to change their helmet.Chizz said:
I don't think it would. The Law says he had to be ready. It doesn't matter whether he asks permission to exchange his helmet. (For clarity, in this instance he didn't).Addick Addict said:Presumably, it makes a difference if Matthews had asked to change his helmet? The Umpires have a duty of care and had Matthews been hit because he'd been denied the opportunity to change it then they would be, potentially, legally culpable.
He should have asked permission. More importantly, he should have had been using equipment that was fit for purpose.
It would have been moot had Mathews decided to face the first ball. Or even if he'd stopped the bowler in his run up and only then pointed out the broken strap.0 - Sponsored links:
-
I suppose the question we should be asking is why, if the Umpires are duty bound to adhere to the Laws of the Game, they didn't automatically give Matthews out? There is no requirement for an appeal and it was only Shakib doing so that forced them to make that decision. And does this precedent mean that Umpires will be under scrutiny to get the stopwatch out from now on? Will the Third Umpire be whispering in the on field Umpires' ears "he's timed out"!!!0
-
I don't agree with your interpretation that Law 40.1.1 gives the obligation to the umpires to give a player out, timed out, without an appeal. In fact Law 31.1 is unambiguous on this point: "Neither umpire shall give a batter out, even though he/she may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder". In short, there is a requirement for an appeal.Addick Addict said:I suppose the question we should be asking is why, if the Umpires are duty bound to adhere to the Laws of the Game, they didn't automatically give Matthews out? There is no requirement for an appeal and it was only Shakib doing so that forced them to make that decision. And does this precedent mean that Umpires will be under scrutiny to get the stopwatch out from now on? Will the Third Umpire be whispering in the on field Umpires' ears "he's timed out"!!!
It's entirely at the behest of the fielding team as to whether they appeal. And, once they do so, the umpires have to adjudicate based on the Laws and, where necessary, any additional conditions.
If it were solely down to the umpires to adjudicate, without an appeal, then De Silva (the next batter in) would have been out, as he wasn't ready to face the next ball until four minutes after Mathews was given out. If the umpires were empowered to give batters out, timed out, without an appeal from the fielding team, then De Silva would have followed Mathews and become only the second player out in that way in an international.0 -
Oh dear. The ICC are getting themselves in a bit of a knot. Adrian Holdstock had just said that Mathews' strap had broken after the two minutes was up. That's demonstrably not true.0
-
Fantastic knock from Asalanka at least. This should be beyond Bangladesh0
-
Shakib took 2m 11s to be ready to face his first ball0
-
Happy to correct myself.Leuth said:These incidents really sort out the 'those are the rules, dummy' blow-ins from the people who actually understand cricket
Having now seen the incident I would say that he shouldn't have been timed out as he was at the crease when he tighten the strap only for it to snap.
Originally I thought he was on his way to the crease when it happened. Seeing as he was "ready" to face a ball then the decision was wrong. If he was faffing about on the boundary or walking out to bat then being "timed out" is legitimate in my view. Being "timed out" when you are ready to receive a ball but then having a piece of equipment fail is not on imo.0 -
He wasn't ready to face the next delivery: he hadn't taken guard.golfaddick said:
Happy to correct myself.Leuth said:These incidents really sort out the 'those are the rules, dummy' blow-ins from the people who actually understand cricket
Having now seen the incident I would say that he shouldn't have been timed out as he was at the crease when he tighten the strap only for it to snap.
Originally I thought he was on his way to the crease when it happened. Seeing as he was "ready" to face a ball then the decision was wrong. If he was faffing about on the boundary or walking out to bat then being "timed out" is legitimate in my view. Being "timed out" when you are ready to receive a ball but then having a piece of equipment fail is not on imo.
Also, fwiw, the fourth umpire said that the helmet strap happened after the two minutes were up. (Even though this isn't the case).
The umpires made the right decision. But, hopefully, the Law will be clarified after the tournament.0 -
Can't wait for these two teams to shake hands at the end of the game!0
-
Bangladesh win by 3 wickets with 62 balls to spare. We remain bottom but should we win comfortably against the Netherlands then we could hit the heady heights of 7th place. We can't actually finish higher than that.0
-
MOM goes to Shakib for his 82, 2-57 and the "timed out" wicket of Matthews0
