Indians and their desperation for praise
-
Contact the PP Team
[VIDEO] Mehdi Hasan Miraz's controversial run-out of Salman Ali Agha: Fair or not?
- Thread starter Ball Blazer
- Start date
Thanks man. He runs a great channel
ghalib kichlu
Tape Ball Regular
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Runs
- 371
The same thing happened to the Sri Lankans too
Salman ali Agha needs to do more homework on his opps before treating matches in Mirpur as friendly
Salman ali Agha needs to do more homework on his opps before treating matches in Mirpur as friendly
RizwanT20Champ
First Class Star
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2024
- Runs
- 3,524
This tulla has zero game awareness and tries to pose for the camera by being friendly. Well deserved run out for a mediocre player. I would be more critical of BD if it had happened to one of our other players but this is our T20 captain folks. We made a bloke with zero game awareness captain and expect to compete.
dravidthewall
First Class Player
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2017
- Runs
- 2,747
Unfair to Agha .The guy was playing well , another century on card, then suddenly this incident happen..He was never aware that mehdy would have done this . No other team would have done this.Disgraceful cricket from Bangladesh, first with mathews and then this with agha.Bangladesh should learn the humanity.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Runs
- 24,564
MCC CLARIFICATION ON RUN OUT INCIDENT DURING BANGLADESH V PAKISTAN
During the second men's One-Day International between Bangladesh and Pakistan in Dhaka, there was an incident that sparked discussion around the world.
After a delivery was played by striker Mohammad Rizwan towards mid-on, bowler Mehidy Hasan Miraz went to try to stop the ball, and in doing so became entangled with non-striker Salman Agha.
Mehidy initially did well to stop the ball, which came to rest next to the non-striker, who was some way out of his ground. Agha stooped to pick the ball up, presumably to return it to the bowler, but Mehidy was quicker, picked up the ball and under-armed it onto the stumps, with Agha well out of his ground. On appeal, and following a quick check from the third umpire, Agha was given out Run out.
Under Laws, there is little that either umpire could have done differently. The non-striker was clearly out of his ground when the wicket was broken, and the ball was in play. That is out.
It is also worth pointing out that the non-striker had left his ground when the ball was in play and had just started to attempt to regain his ground when he collided with Mehidy. Furthermore, no batter should attempt to pick the ball up without the consent of the fielding side, and had he done so, he would have been at risk of an Obstructing the field dismissal. In retrospect, he would have been better using that time to attempt to regain his ground.
There have been some suggestions that the ball should have been treated as Dead. That is not viable under the Laws; the ball does not become dead when players collide – if it did, that would incentivise players to seek out collisions when the situation was advantageous. There was no question of a serious injury, so there could be no call of Dead ball for that. It could not have been clear to the umpire that all the players ceased to consider the ball to be in play, since Mehidy clearly believed it was live, even if Agha did not. And it cannot have been finally settled in the hands of the bowler or wicket-keeper, since it was on the floor.
Under the new Laws, which will come into effect in October, an umpire will be able to determine that the ball is finally settled if it is stationary on the ground. However, it is hard to make an argument that the ball is finally settled if the nearest fielder to it is attempting to run the non-striker out, with that non-striker out of their ground.
There is no case, therefore, to be made that this was Not out under Law, nor that the Law could be re-written to somehow make a situation like this Not out.
Yet many people have expressed sympathy for Agha and suggested that this dismissal was against the Spirit of Cricket.
It certainly would have been possible for Mehidy, as Bangladesh captain, to withdraw his appeal. Agha clearly thought the ball was dead and was attempting to assist the fielding side after an unintentional collision which made it harder for him to regain his ground. The Laws allow a withdrawal for incidents where the batter is out in Law, but the fielding side feels that it would be better, within the Spirit of Cricket, to allow them to continue.
www.lords.org
During the second men's One-Day International between Bangladesh and Pakistan in Dhaka, there was an incident that sparked discussion around the world.
After a delivery was played by striker Mohammad Rizwan towards mid-on, bowler Mehidy Hasan Miraz went to try to stop the ball, and in doing so became entangled with non-striker Salman Agha.
Mehidy initially did well to stop the ball, which came to rest next to the non-striker, who was some way out of his ground. Agha stooped to pick the ball up, presumably to return it to the bowler, but Mehidy was quicker, picked up the ball and under-armed it onto the stumps, with Agha well out of his ground. On appeal, and following a quick check from the third umpire, Agha was given out Run out.
Under Laws, there is little that either umpire could have done differently. The non-striker was clearly out of his ground when the wicket was broken, and the ball was in play. That is out.
It is also worth pointing out that the non-striker had left his ground when the ball was in play and had just started to attempt to regain his ground when he collided with Mehidy. Furthermore, no batter should attempt to pick the ball up without the consent of the fielding side, and had he done so, he would have been at risk of an Obstructing the field dismissal. In retrospect, he would have been better using that time to attempt to regain his ground.
There have been some suggestions that the ball should have been treated as Dead. That is not viable under the Laws; the ball does not become dead when players collide – if it did, that would incentivise players to seek out collisions when the situation was advantageous. There was no question of a serious injury, so there could be no call of Dead ball for that. It could not have been clear to the umpire that all the players ceased to consider the ball to be in play, since Mehidy clearly believed it was live, even if Agha did not. And it cannot have been finally settled in the hands of the bowler or wicket-keeper, since it was on the floor.
Under the new Laws, which will come into effect in October, an umpire will be able to determine that the ball is finally settled if it is stationary on the ground. However, it is hard to make an argument that the ball is finally settled if the nearest fielder to it is attempting to run the non-striker out, with that non-striker out of their ground.
There is no case, therefore, to be made that this was Not out under Law, nor that the Law could be re-written to somehow make a situation like this Not out.
Yet many people have expressed sympathy for Agha and suggested that this dismissal was against the Spirit of Cricket.
It certainly would have been possible for Mehidy, as Bangladesh captain, to withdraw his appeal. Agha clearly thought the ball was dead and was attempting to assist the fielding side after an unintentional collision which made it harder for him to regain his ground. The Laws allow a withdrawal for incidents where the batter is out in Law, but the fielding side feels that it would be better, within the Spirit of Cricket, to allow them to continue.
MCC CLARIFICATION ON RUN OUT INCIDENT DURING BANGLADESH V PAKISTAN
MCC CLARIFICATION ON RUN OUT INCIDENT DURING BANGLADESH V PAKISTAN
Similar threads
