adzzy786
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2009
- Runs
- 4,527
I guess when the tiger hits rock bottom it starts to meow . Pathetic from Bangladesh. Shameful.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can you explain please how ?This is the kind of behaviour you would expect from Bangladesh. They have always been the most undignified out of all the national sides I've seen play over the last 20 years or so.
Umpires actually couldn't believe it and asked Shakib if he was serious and again if he wanted to retract the appeal. The umpires would have let it go had Shakib no insisted on the dismissal.Shakib just appealed. It was the umpires who thought that the appal was legitimate and logical. But no one is blaming the umpires here! How funny! And the umpires also should not be blamed . They just following the law .
Oh poor people! Shakib didn't give Mathews out, umpires did.
If there is one to be hated here that will only this law makers , not Shakib.
More quotes from Mathews from his presser:
… it's obviously disgraceful from Shakib and Bangladesh if they want to play cricket like that obviously stooped down to that level I think there's something wrong drastically
Yeah, so I mean, see, up to today, I had utmost respect to him and Bangladesh team
Yes, I think, unfortunately, it happened against Bangladesh. I don't think any other team would do that …,,.. And my personal opinion is, if it was any other team, they wouldn't have done it.
….In my 15 years of experience, I've never witnessed a team and player being put in such a lowly position.
Some very strong stuff by Mathews.
I think BCCI have better relations with SLC than BCBCould well find himself in trouble with the ICC.
Law is law. Shakib explained it in press conference. He wanted to win by any means within law. Bangladesh was desperate to win .Umpires actually couldn't believe it and asked Shakib if he was serious and again if he wanted to retract the appeal. The umpires would have let it go had Shakib no insisted on the dismissal.
You mean ask the one batsman who took so long?I dont shy away from saying that what Shakib did wasn't very friendly but the rules are the rules and Mathews clearly violated it.
As a matter of fact, Mathews came very late to the crease even before he had the helmet malfunction so the entire helmet malfucntion as was completely trivial. Instead you can question why such a law is there in first place. Also hilarious how many folks are saying that our team has been partaking in similar acts throughout our history. I don't see our players engaging in controversial actions. People have the memory of a goldfish it seems.
I am fine with mankading or bairstow's dismissal. Instead ask the batsmen what took them so long.
So?
So?
I don't understand this argument.
It doesn't matter if it was Matthew's or any one else who had acted in an unsporting manner in the past.
Can you explain please how ?
Well said Misbah. There's no way he would've done this if he had the opportunity to pursue such an opportunity.
Arrh ok.Not saying what happened to Mathews was right. It’s a stupid rule, but he can’t cry about the spirit of the game when he himself didn’t call back Buttler after the “run out”.
Why was the rule put in the first place? Just imagine this, the batsmen decided to walk out 30 minutes later (something which could mean getting better conditions with dew or forcing a NR) - how would that look? Commonsense dictates that icc has to invoke a time-limit which in ODI and Tests is 2 minutes.You mean ask the one batsman who took so long?
It's a cheap unsporting tactic... why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
If it wasn't then the umpires wouldn't have asked him whether they wanted to uphold the appeal
It's called unsporting behaviour.Why was the rule put in the first place? Just imagine this, the batsmen decided to walk out 30 minutes later (something which could mean getting better conditions with dew or forcing a NR) - how would that look? Commonsense dictates that icc has to invoke a time-limit which in ODI and Tests is 2 minutes.
Cheap, unsporting - it was in the law book, shakib did not partake in any activity whatsoever that led Mathews to be late. Does it look so good? No. Shakib made the appeal, and the umpires gave it out. Now you can say that shakib should have recalled him - well why did he appeal in the first place?
I don't think its as clear cut as that hence all the hullaballoo surrounding the incident. Mathews was ready within the specified time limit then noticed the broken strap.Law is law. Shakib explained it in press conference. He wanted to win by any means within law. Bangladesh was desperate to win .
If Shakib did any wrong then there is ICC to punish him. Many people don't like mankading. But Aswin did it and he didn't do any wrong. If you have so many objection then appeal to wipe out these laws from the book. Why blame a player? Why you don't blame the law maker?
Athar didn't agree with it, and he's a big cheerleader of Bangladesh team hence why I am guessing you're asking.What was Athar's reaction?
Can someone tell me. I didn't watch the game.
My initial reaction was it was disgraceful but then after a few hours when I looked back at it Bangladesh were well within their right to appeal for the time out. Its the MCC/ICC that has formulated the rules and whats the use of rules if its disgraceful to follow them. As long as its within the framework of the rules nothing wrong in abiding by it. Especially when Bangladesh are at the brink of being eliminated from CT the stakes are too high to take a high moral ground.
I also find Angelo at fault. Firstly, he took ages to arrive at the crease. Secondly, most players be it Babar or Virat always step into the field wearing their helmet. Its the individual player's responsibility to see that his equipment is fine. Lastly, when Angelo came to bat it was a spinner who was bowling. He could have easily faced his 1st ball and then when the over was completed he could have asked for a replacement helmet.
The same SL team's bowler deliberately tried to deny Kohli a century by trying to bowl a wide. Is that within the spirit of the game. Today when they are at the recieving end no use crying foul.
What was actually against the spirit of the game was the players not shaking their hands at the end of the game. Icc should take note of this.
He did nothing wrong and was well within his rights. I dont think its his fault for following the rules. If anyone needs to be blames then its the MCC which formulated the rule that needs to be answerable. Angelo firstly came late at teh crease. secondly should have checked his equipment before hand, lastly and more importantly he was facing a spinner. So could have easily played of the over and then in between overs could have asked for a new helmet.They will be for a long time after what Shakib just did.
I do have a clear mind my friend. Neither am I Srilankan nor Bangladeshi so my thoughts are nuetral. Why have laws if people will be crucified for following them? In that case remove dismissals like obstructing the field (eg., Inzi's dismissal), hit wicket too as the fielding team has no role in these dismissals.If this is how you feel a few hours after the game then maybe take a little longer and actually come back with a clear mind
But when an umpire asked you whether you really want to uphold such an appeal that should be enough to take the heat out of the situation.... make you remember that what you're about to do is actually extremely silly....Look our Bangla boys are fiery, they are different.
I would not comment about their past, I would not like to judge them, how can I, as my own fellow citizens have let me down a million times.
On today’s mode of dismissal, Angelo Mathews was late to the crease. He was already over the 2 min limit, and then his strap broke. It's all his fault really. Bangla boys were frustrated, and it was the heat of the moment.
His equipment was fine until he was at the crease and put his helmet on. That’s when the strap either tore or burst open. The entire cricketing world, with players from every country, are rightfully calling it for what it was - bad sportsmanship and a stain on the game.He did nothing wrong and was well within his rights. I dont think its his fault for following the rules. If anyone needs to be blames then its the MCC which formulated the rule that needs to be answerable. Angelo firstly came late at teh crease. secondly should have checked his equipment before hand, lastly and more importantly he was facing a spinner. So could have easily played of the over and then in between overs could have asked for a new helmet.
Shakib is just being made a villain when all he did as captain was take a decision that would benefit his team.
But Bangladesh has always been quite arrogant with their nagin dance when the beat SL. Mushfiqur celebrating early against India in the 2016 t20 WC. Even their u19 team was unruly a couple of years ago maybe taking a leaf out of the seniors books.
Its reported that he took 1 min 50s and not over 2 min. So that should negate the timed out dismissal. Not sure if ICC calculated the exact time by viewing the whole footageLook our Bangla boys are fiery, they are different.
I would not comment about their past, I would not like to judge them, how can I, as my own fellow citizens have let me down a million times.
On today’s mode of dismissal, Angelo Mathews was late to the crease. He was already over the 2 min limit, and then his strap broke. It's all his fault really. Bangla boys were frustrated, and it was the heat of the moment.
Rules are rules and spirit of the game is honestly not any use. But its reported that he took 1 min 50s and not over 2 min. So he was there before the 2 min mark. So rules apply here then. Umpires should have voided the appeal automatically as batsman was there as reported by 1 min 50s.. Its on the umpires. They are at fault here for not applying the rules. Bang can appeal for it but umpires should have voided as batsman was there within 2 min.His equipment was fine until he was at the crease and put his helmet on. That’s when the strap either tore or burst open. The entire cricketing world, with players from every country, are rightfully calling it for what it was - bad sportsmanship and a stain on the game.
The purpose of the rule is to stop purposeful stalling. There’s nothing wrong with waiting for another helmet when there’s an equipment failure. Shakib should never have appealed. There are probably many instances where the player technically does not make it there by time and the team jus lets it go.
The biggest delay I can remember is in the 2007 India vs South Africa Test in Capetown. This was a massive failure of the Indian team management as they should have been well aware that Sachin would not have been able to bat yet since he had left the field earlier. It took a long time, at least double or triple the time it took Matthews, for Ganguly to finally come out and bat. He went on to be the second highest scorer for India in that innings. Ganguly could have easily been given time out but because Graeme Smith had some honor he let Ganguly bat on.
Yeah the rules in cricket were also purposefully designed to allow for discretion and the spirit of the game to be honored. If “rules are rules” then there would be an automatic countdown and automatic out given if the batsmen is not here within 2 minutes. Instead, you have to appeal for the out. If Matthews was purposefully stalling the game for some reason, such as to stall until the game was stopped due to rain or something else, then the cricket world would have supported Shakib’s decision. But for Shakib to appeal due to an equipment failure - and the most important equipment that keeps batsmen safe - is disgraceful.To those who are saying “rules are rules” :
There is also a thing called common sense. Rules cannot be applied without sense. That is why we have humans as umpires and not robots. Humans understand context; machines do not.
This decision was completely devoid of sense. Matthews made it to the crease on time. He was not trying to waste time. He was not lazy nor inattentive in the dressing room. This was a safety concern which Matthews could not avoid or predict.
Keeping the above context in mind, the umpires should’ve shut this appeal down instantly. However, given the standard of umpiring lately, this is way too much to ask of the umpires.
Less said about BD the better - a shameful appeal by a shameful player.
Think after this , there will be an actual timer displayed from now on just like the 15sec timer fro DRS appeals. Its good it happened now and not in a sf or final.. Imagine its an ind-pak sf and this happens - boy there would have been a meltdown !!Yeah the rules in cricket were also purposefully designed to allow for discretion and the spirit of the game to be honored. If “rules are rules” then there would be an automatic countdown and automatic out given if the batsmen is not here within 2 minutes. Instead, you have to appeal for the out. If Matthews was purposefully stalling the game for some reason, such as to stall until the game was stopped due to rain or something else, then the cricket world would have supported Shakib’s decision. But for Shakib to appeal due to an equipment failure - and the most important equipment that keeps batsmen safe - is disgraceful.
The rule says if he had taken his guard then he cannot be ruled time out. Instead neither did he take the guard nor took permission from the umpires/opposition captain to seek a new helmet. He was already late to the crease and all he had to do was signal for the new helmet and take guard. It shows his lack of game awareness.His equipment was fine until he was at the crease and put his helmet on. That’s when the strap either tore or burst open. The entire cricketing world, with players from every country, are rightfully calling it for what it was - bad sportsmanship and a stain on the game.
The purpose of the rule is to stop purposeful stalling. There’s nothing wrong with waiting for another helmet when there’s an equipment failure. Shakib should never have appealed. There are probably many instances where the player technically does not make it there by time and the team jus lets it go.
The biggest delay I can remember is in the 2007 India vs South Africa Test in Capetown. This was a massive failure of the Indian team management as they should have been well aware that Sachin would not have been able to bat yet since he had left the field earlier. It took a long time, at least double or triple the time it took Matthews, for Ganguly to finally come out and bat. He went on to be the second highest scorer for India in that innings. Ganguly could have easily been given time out but because Graeme Smith had some honor he let Ganguly bat on.
So your argument is that Graeme Smith should not have let Ganguly bat?The rule says if he had taken his guard then he cannot be ruled time out. Instead neither did he take the guard nor took permission from the umpires/opposition captain to seek a new helmet. He was already late to the crease and all he had to do was signal for the new helmet and take guard. It shows his lack of game awareness.
Ignorance of law/rules is no excuse.
Neither Rohit Sharma or Babar Azam would have ever appealed for something like this. There’s a reason it’s never happened in International cricket before. You really think no player has ever taken more than 2 minutes before to face up for the first ball before? Of course it’s happened many times, no one has been dishonorable enough to appeal for it though.Think after this , there will be an actual timer displayed from now on just like the 15sec timer fro DRS appeals. Its good it happened now and not in a sf or final.. Imagine it’s an ind-pak sf and this happens - boy there would have been a meltdown !!![]()
It was originally added to just keep the game moving and so players would not purposefully stall.I blame ICC for these dumb rules. They put these idiotic rules in place where the fans lose by having to deal with anticlimactic dismissals.
At the end of the day sport is just entertainment, why add unnecessary rules like this.
That's all fine and it would have helped.The rule says if he had taken his guard then he cannot be ruled time out. Instead neither did he take the guard nor took permission from the umpires/opposition captain to seek a new helmet. He was already late to the crease and all he had to do was signal for the new helmet and take guard. It shows his lack of game awareness.
Ignorance of law/rules is no excuse.
I was not aware of that incident. I just googled it and learnt that Ganguly had a 6 minute delay. If Grame Smith had appealed and Ganguly was given out I wouldn't have called that against the spirit of the game.So your argument is that Graeme Smith should not have let Ganguly bat?
My initial reaction was it was disgraceful but then after a few hours when I looked back at it Bangladesh were well within their right to appeal for the time out. Its the MCC/ICC that has formulated the rules and whats the use of rules if its disgraceful to follow them. As long as its within the framework of the rules nothing wrong in abiding by it. Especially when Bangladesh are at the brink of being eliminated from CT the stakes are too high to take a high moral ground.
I also find Angelo at fault. Firstly, he took ages to arrive at the crease. Secondly, most players be it Babar or Virat always step into the field wearing their helmet. Its the individual player's responsibility to see that his equipment is fine. Lastly, when Angelo came to bat it was a spinner who was bowling. He could have easily faced his 1st ball and then when the over was completed he could have asked for a replacement helmet.
The same SL team's bowler deliberately tried to deny Kohli a century by trying to bowl a wide. Is that within the spirit of the game. Today when they are at the recieving end no use crying foul.
What was actually against the spirit of the game was the players not shaking their hands at the end of the game. Icc should take note of this.
Well at least you are consistent. I think neither Ganguly or Matthews should have been given out.I was not aware of that incident. I just googled it and learnt that Ganguly had a 6 minute delay. If Grame Smith had appealed and Ganguly was given out I wouldn't have called that against the spirit of the game.
I remember Sachin was runout in the Kolkata test in 1999 when his bat was inside the crease but it lifted up after his collision with Shoaib Akhtar and the ball hit the stumps at that time. Pakistan appealed and he was given out. It was unfortunate but still was within the rules of that time. Now the rule has been changed.
Umpires are at fault here. From whats reported , Angelo was at the crease within 1 min 50 sec ready to face when he noticed the broken strap. At that point umpires should have voided Bang appeal as Angelo was already there.. It is said he took more than 2 minutes, but the actual calculated time thats been reported is 1 min 50 s. So umpires fault totally.
I don't think that's right. The fourth umpire clearly said during an interview on TV that Mathews was over 2 min before he was ready to take guard.
I blame ICC for these dumb rules. They put these idiotic rules in place where the fans lose by having to deal with anticlimactic dismissals.Its reported that he took 1 min 50s and not over 2 min. So that should negate the timed out dismissal. Not sure if ICC calculated the exact time by viewing the whole footage
Don't think it is an unnecessary rule. Cricketers waste a lot of time these days. I don't pay money to watch Angello Mathews taking 2 min to come to the crease and then break his strapAt the end of the day sport is just entertainment, why add unnecessary rules like this.
So totally on the umps then. Umpires should have voided the appeal automatically as batsman was there as reported by 1 min 50s.. Its 100% on the umpires. They are at fault here for not applying the rules. Bang can appeal for it but umpires should have voided as batsman was there within 2 min. Bang can appeal yes but the ump should have negated it. This getting Shakib to withdraw the request is nonsense. They should have checked the time correctly and applied the rule correctly. The umps totally messed here.Well in this situation umpires should have been given a relief to the batsman i guess.
Poor stuff yes but again umps at fault here. They should have calculated the time for the batsman and negated Bang appeal..Poor stuff from Bangladesh that.
You have to be desperate to do that sort of thing.
The skipper has to be held responsible for this - he could easily have said to his team that we are not appealing or withdrawing the appeal.
You are right no appeal is made when a batsman tosses the ball to the fielding team. It is like a tacit understanding between players. If only Angelo has straight informed that umpires and Shakib of the issue and then signalled the new helmet with due permission it would have been better. If Shakib would have objected all he needed to do was take guard.You're right, but the thing is a player never expects the opposition to appeal in this situation. It has never happened because everyone uses their common sense.
Almost every game we see batsmen block the ball and then pick it up to toss it over to the bowler/fielder. Imagine the opposition appeals. The batsman is gone.
We will say he should have known better but opposition players have to be reasonable and understand when a player is taking advantage and when they're not. This is why Mankading still makes sense as the player is attempting to gain an unfair advantage by leaving the crease early. This one does not.
This is not an archaic rule. Legit rule. Otherwise batsmen will take his own time to get out. Especially when there is fading light on day 5 and a team is required to save a test. If each batsman takes extra 3 minutes you can easily steal 15 minutes. Just have to apply commonesense.I am glad that this timed-out incident happened in a non-India game (especially, the one that did not involve Ashwin).
Can't imagine the uproar and outrage it would have caused from the usual "spirit of the cricket" brigade (in particular, those from English-speaking cricket nations and conspiracy theory nutcases from our neighborhoods of all sides) and further vilification of India and Ashwin (I am looking at you Fox sports Australia!).
Not a nice way to get out but ICC needs to look into these archaic rules and amend them for modern times.
I am all for common sense (it's a tough thing to find, that's another story), bud.This is not an archaic rule. Legit rule. Otherwise batsmen will take his own time to get out. Especially when there is fading light on day 5 and a team is required to save a test. If each batsman takes extra 3 minutes you can easily steal 15 minutes. Just have to apply commonesense.
Even then it doesn’t make sense as stupid thing is that you can stall anytime after the first ball gets bowled.This is not an archaic rule. Legit rule. Otherwise batsmen will take his own time to get out. Especially when there is fading light on day 5 and a team is required to save a test. If each batsman takes extra 3 minutes you can easily steal 15 minutes. Just have to apply commonesense.
Onfield umpires will urge you to speed up things. But when batsmen don't even come in what can he do. So the law is not the issue. Applying for exceptional cases is the problem.Even then it doesn’t make sense as stupid thing is that you can stall anytime after the first ball gets bowled.
Heck for sure you need these rules. Or else cricketers will exploit them blatantly. Especially the time wasting in tests..I blame ICC for these dumb rules. They put these idiotic rules in place where the fans lose by having to deal with anticlimactic dismissals.
Don't think it is an unnecessary rule. Cricketers waste a lot of time these days. I don't pay money to watch Angello Mathews taking 2 min to come to the crease and then break his strap
Yeah can never see rohit or babar doing it ! Only possibility maybe would be in a Pak-Afg match and it's the last batsman Naseem shah coming in and maybe Afg will appeal for it if he is like 5 seconds late LOL !Neither Rohit Sharma or Babar Azam would have ever appealed for something like this. There’s a reason it’s never happened in International cricket before. You really think no player has ever taken more than 2 minutes before to face up for the first ball before? Of course it’s happened many times, no one has been dishonorable enough to appeal for it though.
So how does this actually add to the debate?Honestly, the incident revived Sri Lanka's batting and gave them the impetus to take them to 280. Before that they were completely flat and Bangladesh were very much on top.
Who was the bowler he would have facedregardless of time , safety comes first, last thing we wanted was a Phillip Hughes incident god forbid
Who was the bowler he would have faced
Out of curiosity let me ask you something. What is your take on the Jonny Bairstow runout in the Ashes earlier this year? I think he was out for leisurely strolling out of the crease.Well at least you are consistent. I think neither Ganguly or Matthews should have been given out.
Man - am okay with shakib not being blamed as it's within his rights and the rules as well but it giving impetus to sl batting lol !!Honestly, the incident revived Sri Lanka's batting and gave them the impetus to take them to 280. Before that they were completely flat and Bangladesh were very much on top.
I don't know who you are talking about lol but virat kohli was pointing to his watch during that game indicating that the batsman was getting late to come in !Actually not the worst rule
At the fall of a wicket, I realise it takes 5 minutes for a Pakistani player to face up the next ball. You all know who I am talking about
They should appeal next time.I don't know who you are talking about lol but virat kohli was pointing to his watch during that game indicating that the batsman was getting late to come in !![]()