Sri Lanka - 279 a.o (50 overs)
Asalanka - 108
Bangladesh - 282/7 (41.1 Overs)
Najmul - 90
Shakib - 82
- ESPN Cricinfo scorecard, 6th Nov 2023
<><><><><>
Sri Lankan Captain Angelo Mathews has labelled Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan "disgraceful", followig his own dismissal by being Timed Out, during Sri Lanka's loss to Bangladesh in the ICC Cricket World Cup.
Sri Lanka was sent into bat Shakib, and looked like they would have been in trouble except that Charith Asalanka scored 108, as part of Sri Lanka's All-Out for 279. Bangladesh never looked like they were troubled in chasing down the 280-run victory target in just 41.1 overs.
However, it was the Angelo Mathews' Timed Out dismissal, which was the first in any form of international cricket, which made this match actually interesting.
What do I think about this dismissal? I can understand that Sri Lankan Captain Angelo Mathews is disappointed and angry after being dismissed this way because as captain, his team lost. I can understand Sri Lankan fans being disappointed and angry because their team lost.
However, I do not accept that that this was a violation of the "spirit of cricket" because this was well within the laws of the game. Like it or not, Angelo Mathews was out, he was definitely out, and the decision of the Umpires is final.
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/timed-out
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.
- Law 40, MCC Laws of Cricket
Quite often a violation of the "spirit of cricket" is invoked but those people that are ignorant of the law, or happen to be at the wrong end of a mistake. The thing is that even if the Umpires are wrong, and even if they are not actually watching the game, their decision as sole arbiters of space and time and laws and decisions and dismissals, is still final.
Jump up and down. Yell like a moron. Flail about like a mad thing. There are Laws by which the game of cricket is played and you must play within them. Exactly how you play inside those laws, and how you play the game, is your choice.
When it comes to the actual dismissal itself, Shakib Al Hasan was well within his rights to appeal for a dismissal and it is not for us to decide whether or not he should have. The decision about how he wants to play the game, including bearing the weight of responsibility of the nation of Bangladesh upon his shoulders, is up to him.
Secondly, in the case of Angelo Mathews, if the umpires have said that two minutes had elapsed and he was out, then two minutes had elapsed and he was out. This is not even a case of the umpires applying the law incorrectly. They have made the right decision.
More generally, in the case of Angelo Mathews, as is often repeated in criminal cases and civil cases in a court of law, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If a law says a thing, and you have infringed it, you don't have a leg to stand upon.
There is already an outcry about over rates in international cricket where bowling sides are taking too long and not bowling the required number of overs in a session and in a day. Quite frankly if the laws require fielding teams to bowl their overs in a specified time, it isn't asking much for a batter to have checked everything and be ready to bat in two minutes.
I myself have fallen foul of this very law when I was listed as coming in at number seven on the batting order and given that we were only two wickets down; with the two batters in the middle in a partnership which had just passed 30 runs, I thought that I would visit the smallest room in the pavilion. In the time that I was sat sitting, enthroned upon the porcelain seat of contemplation, four wickets fell. As it was somewhat impossible for me to get up at that point, I assumed that someone else would go out into the middle. When I did strap my pads and gloves and helmet on, and carry my bat to the field, I was immediately shown the index finger pointed towards heaven. Out. Not only out but out 0 (0), Timed Out (Lavatory). I now can at least feel vindicated many many years later.
Angelo Mathews' case though, is very very different from the usual violations which might cause this kind of ire. This is different from a batter backing up too far at the non-striker's end because in that scenario, a batter is seeking, or getting, an unfair advantage and the bowler must run him out if possible. Here though, Mathews was getting no advantage whatsoever, not do I think that nor was he seeking any. If I was a Fielder or a Bowler who saw a Batter creeping at the non-striker's end, then I would absolutely run a non-striker out every day of the week.
Granted that batters routinely pick up a ball in play to give it to the bowler or a fielder and no one appeals, though careful batters ask if they can. Perhaps if Mathews had asked the Umpires and the opposing Captain if it was okay to change his helmet, then I am reasonably sure that there would have been no appeal. However, he did not speak to anyone about changing his equipment; so the appeal however unfortunate for him, was absolutely justified.
However disappointed and angry Angelo Mathews is now, after being dismissed this way, I am sure that he will look back on this with pride in time. Forever into the future, he will be famous in pub trivia for having been the first person to be dismissed Timed Out at international level. Sure, he would have like to have scored a hundred, or perhaps taken a five-wicket haul but going into the record books this way means that he wins the fame and ovation of the people forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment