What's new

[VIDEOS] ICC World Cup 2023: Angelo Mathews Timed Out - Worse than Mankad?

Was Angelo Mathews' time out dismissal against the Spirit of Cricket?

  • Yes, totally uncalled for

    Votes: 114 89.1%

  • No, Bangladesh did the right thing

    Votes: 17 13.3%
  • Total voters
    128
I see that Ramiz thought the umpires dealt well with the situation. No Ramiz it wasn't the whole thing was a farce and a disgrace to cricket.
 
topspin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can you explain please how ?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Mainul said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
MenInG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some very strong stuff by Mathews.
 
A lot of Bangladeshi fans won't like it. Shakib just wanted to do something to become talk of BCB again. He's recently caught a lot of bad PR in Ban as well. Now he'll just do something to cry victim to become BCB's darling again.
The match was a fairly docile one. SL was pretty much out of contention for the semis before the match.
 
Kroll said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Executioner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
IMMY69 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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”.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
YousafTheBeast said:
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”.
Click to expand...
Arrh ok.
To be honest I haven't read the post about what he said or watched any press conference... the player involved is irrelevant to me.

Unsporting behaviour is what matters and this win at any cost attitude is what troubles me. This is cricket after all and the term "it's just not cricket" is now almost extinct
 
IMMY69 said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
Executioner said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's called unsporting behaviour.

We're not talking about a player taking 30 minutes to walk out, we talking about one or maximum two minutes... so you think two crew munutes would have effected the playing conditions in the second innings? If anything it would be factoring the side batting second...

Just call it for it is... a cheap tactic to get a batsman out... inexplicably poor and unsporting...
 
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.
 
Mainul said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

No matter what your vocation is, safety always and should supersede rules and laws.
 
ex-q-zit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
160KPH said:
They will be for a long time after what Shakib just did.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
IMMY69 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.

Whether it is mankading or time out as long as they are in the rules they should be followed irrespective of what moral comapsses are used to judge them.
 
gazza619 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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....
 
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..
 
ex-q-zit said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
gazza619 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
160KPH said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Snowflake said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Whilst it's within the rules they should take in consideration how long it took to get to the crease.
 
160KPH said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 !!:)
 
Can someone please advise rugby tackling is allowed in cricket, ala Sidebottom style but with intent to hurt?

If not advise SL team to take that route next time they are fielding against BD

Get a gorilla size sub just for fielding and maul a few batsmen

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, rule for rule
 
160KPH said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ex-q-zit said:
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.
Click to expand...
So your argument is that Graeme Smith should not have let Ganguly bat?
 
deltexas said:
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 !!:)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Suleiman said:
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.
Click to expand...
It was originally added to just keep the game moving and so players would not purposefully stall.
 
ex-q-zit said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's all fine and it would have helped.

Having said that, there is reason that it has never been done in international cricket. No captain has ever claimed a wicket for this. It's actually extremely poor behavior when no team is at disadvantage here due to 1 minute of extra delay. Time does not count towards bowling side in this case.

Even after he explained the situation of strap getting broken while putting it on and umpire even asked if BD team wanted to claim the wicket, BD team went for this. Beyond pathetic.

Yes, it was legal but it was pathetic. Rule was to make sure players don't waste their time and not to claim cheap wickets.
 
Shakib admitted as much that there was an opportunity to for getting Matthews out. He took it. He knew there will be backlash. He took it anyway. Will give him for that instead of saying no comments. He deep down knows that was not an intentional delay. But he just wanted to exploit the rule. I just saw the video. didn't see it live. Poor Matthews was almost pleading Shakib.
 
160KPH said:
So your argument is that Graeme Smith should not have let Ganguly bat?
Click to expand...
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.
 
ex-q-zit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
ex-q-zit said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well at least you are consistent. I think neither Ganguly or Matthews should have been given out.
 
deltexas said:
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.
Click to expand...
deltexas said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Suleiman said:
At the end of the day sport is just entertainment, why add unnecessary rules like this.
Click to expand...
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
 
Cricket Warrior said:
Well in this situation umpires should have been given a relief to the batsman i guess.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1721607828740407758
Click to expand...
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.







Quote Reply
 
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.
 
Saj said:
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.
Click to expand...
Poor stuff yes but again umps at fault here. They should have calculated the time for the batsman and negated Bang appeal..
 
kingusama92 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Everyone knew Steve Smith and Rassie were not out but given out by DRS but did the captain appeal against it in the spirit of the game. Same with Shamsi which in fact changed the result of the match. If it happens within the rules of the game then we have to accept it.

Thats how I look at things. The stakes were too high for Bangladesh to look at the moral aspect of the game (CT 2025 Qualification). Its unfortunate but things do happen in cricket.
 
avidlearner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am all for common sense (it's a tough thing to find, that's another story), bud.

I meant rules that can be manipulated in general, maybe I should have worded my post correctly.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even then it doesn’t make sense as stupid thing is that you can stall anytime after the first ball gets bowled.
 
Wao!!!! What a day at PP…

The first thing that stuck me is that, Angelo didn’t know the rule, but our boys knew - I’m impressed!!!! Not the sharpest tools, but they surprised me to catch the Srilankans off guard and to be honest, it can’t be done to a better opponents than Srilanka, not really the saints they are.

Here is my take - Shakib was well within his right to call for a perfectly legitimate dismissal. It’s a stupid law for sure but then, if there is a judgemental call in it, it shouldn’t be with the players & if there is a valid law that it should be expected also that when someone eventually calls for it, it won’t be disputed, neither questioned. Think about other way - this game eventually can end up as the CT qualifier …. Apart from the participation in an ICC event, that comes with quite a fat pay cheque for the board as well. Shakib was suggested by one of the players (Shanto - once again it proved that cricket is an educated man’s game) - for the sake of saying, say Shakib ignores the issue (or withdraws the appeal later), and BD losses the game - he would have been shredded by BD posters across social media and lots of people here then would have made fun of him, trolling him as a show pony who sacrificed countries interest for personal glory - I can post several comments from just about a month back when indeed Liton called Sodhi back!!!! It was a double way sword for him & guy must be kicking his stars to be the man of the decision dilemma.

I am a bit surprised that all sorts of video clips are posted here but the actual response from ICC officials isn’t!!! I have heard a five minutes long explanation from 4th official (Holdstock), where he categorically mentioned that Angelo WAS ALREADY OVER THE LIMIT, before the helmet malfunction…. Means, he was already costing BD team time that eventually would have cost them in third PP - not a spirited sportsmanship to be honest. I for one, never felt sorry for SAF of 1992, for that they tactfully bowled 45 overs instead of 50…. otherwise would have chased at least 60 more that fateful might.

As I said, it’s a stupid law, but still it’s a valid clause - Shakib didn’t temper with the ball (& got caught by umpire, penalised 5 runs), he didn’t chuck with the bowling action, he didn’t get his bowling action “corrected & cleared” few times only to be called again next time, he didn’t get a batsman out of a bump ball, neither picked a dropped catch behind scenes and got the batsman out, didn’t bowl under arm to restrict batsman, didn’t bite the ball to get it roughed-up or didn’t call his players out because umpire called his bowler for chucking….. or didn’t somehow managed to bowl a two feet overstepped no ball - still he must have disgraced the game for sure.

Would I have done so - probably on my own not, but not sure, as Wasim Bhai said - it depends on context, opponents; though I believe my moral is less flexible than swinging in between different scenarios. But, had one of my teammates notified me, I probably would had to go for it - reason I have explained already. But, I’ll never say - he did wrong or disgraced Bangladesh. I’m actually happy and proud to see that he had the guts to say on live telecast that it was a war & he would do anything within law to win it for his team - no sugarcoating. Someone a soft character probably would have stumbled … & before that would have flopped as player as well.

Only constructive outcome of this “disgraceful” act is that, it exposed cricket - an ancient, obsolete & outdated game surviving on the passion of 2bn south Asians (as we suck in most other global spectator games) & on Indian money; where even in this millennium professionals need to bother about rupturing the “spirit”. Otherwise, thousands of soccer players dive or fake foul without bothering to twist the “spirit of the game”, where the outcome can only be a penalty or a booking, and everyone is comfortable with that - that’s modern way of professionalism.

@Swashbuckler …. Since you asked for it.
 
Mockingbird said:
Even then it doesn’t make sense as stupid thing is that you can stall anytime after the first ball gets bowled.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Shakib and Chappell two names interlinked for ever, separated by decades, joined at the hips.

Neither broke any rule, but would I like them to coach any kids leaving to play the game, heck no.

If Shakib considers a cricket game as war, then hopefully they get war every time on the field.

Predictably all BDers sucking up to their captain, for they know deep inside their hearts that's the only way their team can compete at elite level.

It is legal what they did, but leave a mighty stench in their trail.

May God help their warriors in the future, for they can't expect any mercies on the battlefield.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
regardless of time , safety comes first, last thing we wanted was a Phillip Hughes incident god forbid
 
gazza619 said:
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
Click to expand...
Heck for sure you need these rules. Or else cricketers will exploit them blatantly. Especially the time wasting in tests..
 
160KPH said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 !😂
 
What a load of rubbish by everyone justifying this, he was not over 2 minutes ! Check the video evidence strap broke at 1:50 min mark.

Umpire are also to blame and should be stood down, how you going on television after one of the biggest incidents of all time to say strap broke after 2 minutes ? Incompetence of the highest order!

Finally As for Shakib, since he such a fan of rules, why didn't he declare corrupt approaches from bookies as that also is clearly not allowed and much more detrimental to the game, or the time he decided to kick stumps over a not out decision.

I though Mathews said the perfect thing, ONLY bangladesh could do something like this
 
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.
 
Dios said:
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.
Click to expand...
So how does this actually add to the debate?

Please can you at least try and show your people in a good light rather then distract from the actual issue?
 
This leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. The lowest of the lows from Bangladesh.
 
160KPH said:
Well at least you are consistent. I think neither Ganguly or Matthews should have been given out.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dios said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 !! 😂
 
Rana said:
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
Click to expand...
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 ! 😂😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cricket Warrior
ICC World Cup 2023: South Africa (382/5) beat Bangladesh (233 all out) by 149 runs
4 5 6
Replies
431
Views
9K
Nil Dhumrojal
Nil Dhumrojal
Cricket Warrior
ICC World Cup 2023: Bangladesh (282/7) defeat Sri Lanka (279) by 3 wickets in a match marred by controversy
3 4 5
Replies
380
Views
7K
Saj
S
Cricket Warrior
ICC World Cup 2023: India (357/8) thrash Sri Lanka (55) to win by a mammoth 302-run margin
12 13 14
Replies
1K
Views
25K
Arajit
A
Cricket Warrior
ICC World Cup 2023: New Zealand (172/5) deliver a telling blow to Pakistan's semi-finals chances with a 5-wicket win over Sri Lanka (171)
17 18 19
Replies
1K
Views
30K
Usergame
U
Cricket Warrior
ICC World Cup 2023: Australia (307/2) defeat Bangladesh (306/8) by 8 wickets
2 3
Replies
204
Views
4K
Nil Dhumrojal
Nil Dhumrojal
Back
Top