| Cricket 10:32 - Nov 6 with 1866 views | gainsboroughblue |
Angelo Mathews 'timed out'.
First time I've ever seen that happen. Some ill feeling to follow I suspect. |  |
| |  |
| Cricket on 10:39 - Nov 6 with 1818 views | Tractor_Buck |
There's a bit of a 'sprit of cricket' thing here again.
Bangladesh appealed because Matthews couldn't find a suitable helmet within 2 minutes of the previous batsman being given out, and upheld that appeal when the umpires checked. Under the rules he has to be ready to face within 2 minutes, but it feels like Bangladesh are taking advantage to get rid of a dangerous batsman. |  | | |
| Cricket on 11:47 - Nov 6 with 1688 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Cricket on 10:39 - Nov 6 by Tractor_Buck |
There's a bit of a 'sprit of cricket' thing here again.
Bangladesh appealed because Matthews couldn't find a suitable helmet within 2 minutes of the previous batsman being given out, and upheld that appeal when the umpires checked. Under the rules he has to be ready to face within 2 minutes, but it feels like Bangladesh are taking advantage to get rid of a dangerous batsman. |
Every batsman knows they need to be ready. Fair enough imo |  | | |
| Cricket on 12:13 - Nov 6 with 1644 views | Tractor_Buck |
| Cricket on 11:47 - Nov 6 by redrickstuhaart |
Every batsman knows they need to be ready. Fair enough imo |
I'm really not sure about this now. Matthews' helmet strap broke as he was putting it on. He was already standing by the wicket and would have been ready to face had he not had an equipment malfunction. It's made him the first batsman in international cricket to be given out, timed out.
Rules are rules I guess, but I feel that one of the tests a bowling captain should always apply is 'how would I react to being given out like that?'. It certainly doesn't make me any less certain that Bangladesh applied the rules in their strictest sense in order to grab a bonus wicket. | | | |
| Cricket on 12:59 - Nov 6 with 1551 views | BlueStreak |
| Cricket on 12:13 - Nov 6 by Tractor_Buck |
I'm really not sure about this now. Matthews' helmet strap broke as he was putting it on. He was already standing by the wicket and would have been ready to face had he not had an equipment malfunction. It's made him the first batsman in international cricket to be given out, timed out.
Rules are rules I guess, but I feel that one of the tests a bowling captain should always apply is 'how would I react to being given out like that?'. It certainly doesn't make me any less certain that Bangladesh applied the rules in their strictest sense in order to grab a bonus wicket. |
He could have batted without his helmet for one ball and then asked for a new one to be brought out? No law saying he say to wear one. |  | | |
| Cricket on 13:03 - Nov 6 with 1537 views | stonojnr |
| Cricket on 10:39 - Nov 6 by Tractor_Buck |
There's a bit of a 'sprit of cricket' thing here again.
Bangladesh appealed because Matthews couldn't find a suitable helmet within 2 minutes of the previous batsman being given out, and upheld that appeal when the umpires checked. Under the rules he has to be ready to face within 2 minutes, but it feels like Bangladesh are taking advantage to get rid of a dangerous batsman. |
They're saying he was timed out, the 2mins had elapsed technically, even before the helmet strap broke, that just added to the delay and gave Bangladesh the opportunity to appeal, as I doubt they'd have bothered otherwise.
And he could have faced a delivery without the helmet fwiw. Then asked for a replacement.
It's a rubbish way to get out, but they're cracking down on slow over rates, which never fully account for the time taken for a wicket and batsmen meandering to the crease.
So it's controversial, but the rules say Bangladesh were within their rights to appeal for it. | | | |
| Cricket on 13:18 - Nov 6 with 1488 views | vilanovablue |
The thing that makes it crazy as Zaltsmann points out is that if he'd faced a single delivery he could have taken as long as he needed. |  | | |
| Cricket on 14:08 - Nov 6 with 1381 views | Tractor_Buck |
| Cricket on 13:18 - Nov 6 by vilanovablue |
The thing that makes it crazy as Zaltsmann points out is that if he'd faced a single delivery he could have taken as long as he needed. |
Indeed - he could also have faced up and backed out during the run up, causing the umpire to call dead ball - and I take the point about slow over rates as well.
I do wonder how it would have worked out if he'd have faced up without a helmet. Would the Bangladeshi bowler have sent down an obvious leave or a ball which was designed to make him protect his bonce at all costs, even if he spliced it/edged it for a catch? Also, had he been seriously injured or worse by a bouncer on the skull, it may well have put him in an awkward position as regards insurance. There's a lot of conflicting ideas with this one which probably wouldn't have been there if the oppo had withdrawn the appeal or the umpire had called time out for an equipment change. | | | |
| Cricket on 14:18 - Nov 6 with 1358 views | BlueRaider |
| Cricket on 12:59 - Nov 6 by BlueStreak |
He could have batted without his helmet for one ball and then asked for a new one to be brought out? No law saying he say to wear one. |
Player safety ? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cricket on 14:25 - Nov 6 with 1339 views | Mookamoo |
| Cricket on 14:18 - Nov 6 by BlueRaider |
Player safety ? |
Does seem a totally counter productive rule.
If there has to be a sanction, then just fine the batsman 5% of their match fee, similar to the slow over rate for bowlers [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 14:41]
|  | | |
| Cricket on 15:25 - Nov 6 with 1264 views | bournemouthblue |
| Cricket on 12:59 - Nov 6 by BlueStreak |
He could have batted without his helmet for one ball and then asked for a new one to be brought out? No law saying he say to wear one. |
That's certainly true, that would have been the wiser option maybe |  |
| |
| Cricket on 15:58 - Nov 6 with 1233 views | Radlett_blue |
| Cricket on 14:25 - Nov 6 by Mookamoo |
Does seem a totally counter productive rule.
If there has to be a sanction, then just fine the batsman 5% of their match fee, similar to the slow over rate for bowlers [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 14:41]
|
fining players for slow over rates has proven totally ineffective.
Matthews was at the crease within the 2 minute limit set for this tournament (the laws of cricket give you 3 minutes). It seems absurd to give him out purely because his chin strap broke while he was adjusting it. Maybe he didn't know he could face 1 ball without his helmet & then take as long as he liked to have a replacement brought out, or maybe he didn't fancy facing a ball with no helmet? |  |
| |
| Cricket on 16:07 - Nov 6 with 1222 views | Meadowlark |
So cricket, like football, is becoming less of a sport and more of a contest of who knows how best to exploit the rules to their advantage. Which in turn leads to further rules to attempt to combat the gamesmanship, and so it goes on...... |  | | |
| Cricket on 16:20 - Nov 6 with 1200 views | Radlett_blue |
| Cricket on 16:07 - Nov 6 by Meadowlark |
So cricket, like football, is becoming less of a sport and more of a contest of who knows how best to exploit the rules to their advantage. Which in turn leads to further rules to attempt to combat the gamesmanship, and so it goes on...... |
It happens in all professional sport e.g.
Tennis - Djokovic, pushing the time allocation to & beyond the limit with his bouncy, bouncy routine
Golf - players regularly trying to bully officials into giving them generous free drops
Sport, like life seems to mirror the values of society whereby what you can get away with is OK. | |
| |
| Cricket on 19:10 - Nov 6 with 1132 views | stonojnr |
| Cricket on 15:58 - Nov 6 by Radlett_blue |
fining players for slow over rates has proven totally ineffective.
Matthews was at the crease within the 2 minute limit set for this tournament (the laws of cricket give you 3 minutes). It seems absurd to give him out purely because his chin strap broke while he was adjusting it. Maybe he didn't know he could face 1 ball without his helmet & then take as long as he liked to have a replacement brought out, or maybe he didn't fancy facing a ball with no helmet? |
the officials are saying he wasnt though, and debates around facing deliveries without a helmet and then changing it or, even carrying on with a broken strap helmet, whilst are interesting, become moot.
theyve stated he didnt make the crease within the time limit therefore he was out. | | | |
| Cricket on 19:16 - Nov 6 with 1098 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Cricket on 10:39 - Nov 6 by Tractor_Buck |
There's a bit of a 'sprit of cricket' thing here again.
Bangladesh appealed because Matthews couldn't find a suitable helmet within 2 minutes of the previous batsman being given out, and upheld that appeal when the umpires checked. Under the rules he has to be ready to face within 2 minutes, but it feels like Bangladesh are taking advantage to get rid of a dangerous batsman. |
So here is the ridiculous thing. This rule only applies when a batter first goes out to bat. Had his strap broken after the first ball then he would have been able to seek a replacement with no problem. Which shows that this is not the intention of this rule. The intention is to stop, say, a Number 11 taking an age to come out to bat when batting to save a match, to eat up the clock and reduce the number of balls to be faced.
In a limited overs game this isn't as relevant.
The Umpires should have said it was a matter of safety that the strap or helmet was replaced and refused to give him out. | | | |
| Cricket on 19:24 - Nov 6 with 1087 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Cricket on 19:10 - Nov 6 by stonojnr |
the officials are saying he wasnt though, and debates around facing deliveries without a helmet and then changing it or, even carrying on with a broken strap helmet, whilst are interesting, become moot.
theyve stated he didnt make the crease within the time limit therefore he was out. |
This has to be a big part of whether it was right. If he was already outside the time limit and then decided a new helmet was required, it is rather different. He really should have been ready to come in - it wasn't as if they had just lost two wickets. Had he been at the crease in good time and then had the helmet issue, it would definitely have been the wrong call. As it is, it feels a bit more like the dopiness that saw Rashid (I think) run out as non-striker. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
