In cricket, there is a rule that requires an incoming batter to reach the crease (that's the place where the batter stands) and receive the ball within three minutes of the previous batter having left the crease on being declared out.
40.1 Out 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.
40.1.2 In the event of an extended delay in which no batter comes to the wicket, the umpires shall adopt the procedure of Law 16.3 (Umpires awarding a match). For the purposes of that Law the start of the action shall be taken as the expiry of the 3 minutes referred to above.
40.2 Bowler does not get credit
The bowler does not get credit for the wicket.
© Marylebone Cricket Club 2017
This is a rule that very few knew till yesterday. That's because always the new batter is in, and play resumes with three minutes.
WHAT ANGELO MATHEWS DID
Yesterday, something bizarre happened during the World Cup match between Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in Delhi.
Sri Lanka batted first, and everything was fine till the fourth wicket fell at the score of 135.
The new batter was Angelo Mathews. He walked in and reached the crease as any normal batter would do.
But just before receiving his first ball, he realized that the strap of his helmet was broken. He wanted to change it and signalled to the dressing room to send a new helmet.
Just as the new helmet was being brought in, the bowling team, that's Bangladesh players, realized that the whole process was taking too much time. Definitely, more than the stipulated duration of three minutes.
Bangladesh team captain Shakib Al Hasan raised the point with the umpire. A quick discussion ensued, and Angelo Mathews was declared out "Time Out" without having played even a single ball.
Mathews spoke to Hasan and the umpires that it was a genuine problem and it was unfair to have invoked the rule.
But the umpires went by the rule book.
That was the first time in cricket history a batter was declared Times Out, and in no time, a huge controversy erupted.
WHY CONTROVERSY WAS NEEDLESS
The issue was not about the rule. Many people thought that Bangladesh should have played by the "spirit of the game" and allowed Mathews to play.
But I beg to differ.
One, a rule is a rule. We all play by the rules of a game. Why are we thinking of an exception only here?
Two, Angelo Mathews should have known the rule. Probably he didn't. Or if he did, he didn't bother. He should have informed the Bangladesh captain and the umpires about the broken helmet and sought permission to have it replaced.
Three, better still, he could have received the first ball and then told the umpire and Bangladesh captain and got the helmet replaced.
Four, Bangladesh was well within its rights to raise the issue and get the batter out. After all, teams play to win by playing within the rules. It's not that Mathews was declared in violation of a rule.
Five, if we go back to the rule, it is clear that the opponent doesn't even have to appeal as in other dismissals. In this case, the batter is out, timed out. Plain and simple. Even if the Bangladesh team hadn't raised the issue, if the umpires were alert, they would have realized the extra time taken and declared Mathews out.
Six, should the Bangladesh captain have requested the umpire to "pardon" Mathews? If he had, that would have been definitely "magnanimous" and "generous". But that was his call. Considering the stakes involved, he didn't do that, and one can't fault him. He didn't do anything wrong by not letting Mathews continue to play.
Seven, what about the spirit of the game? Well, but how are we defining the spirit of the game? If we are going to play games allowing for rules to be bent based on "compassionate grounds" and "spirit of the game", won't many matches end in total chaos?
I don't think it's fair to blame Bangladesh, and there was nothing wrong with Angelo Mathews being declared out timed out.
It would be nice to know your thoughts on this.
I agree with you. No rules were broken. My point is the umpires and the Bangladesh team should have distinguished between deliberate delay and equipment malfunction.
ReplyDeleteUsually when a rule is invoked for the first time, there will be an element of surprise, and a debate. You do have a point. Probably, the rule should be amended to incorporate the word, "intentional". Or, with a clause that the umpire should be informed, or something to that effect. So, this unusual method of getting a batter out will look more fair.
DeleteIn 2007, Graeme Smith of South Africa had the opportunity to have Sourav Ganguly “timed out”, but he chose not to enforce this rule.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I was unaware of this. It's indeed a gracious thing to do, when someone looks at the context and makes an informed decision rather than just go by the letter of the law.
DeleteHari Om
ReplyDeleteI too agree with you - though I appreciated, too, that the circumstance muddied the matter. But it has to be said that my impression of 'the spirit of cricket' hales from the same source of 'old boys network' and lends itself to straying off on all sorts of favoursome paths - for some... rules is rules! YAM xx
Hi Yamini - Yes, there is always the element of context that needs to be factored in. All said and done, I don't think any sportsperson will just concede a point on a whim, especially when it's out the framework of the rules.
DeleteHi Pradeep - such is life ... another anomaly in the game of cricket - but the player has to be prepared to go straight on and play - he should have known his helmet needed repair and sorted it before hand. Right decision I think ... but I note SG's comment.
ReplyDeleteNow to hear your thoughts on the Aussie win with that chap 'bashing' sixes all over the ground in his score of over 200 ... fun for everyone watching the matches - cheers Hilary
Yes, Hilary, Mathews should have known about the rule, or if he had indeed known, he should have taken that seriously. Regarding the dramatic batting display by Maxwell yesterday, it was simply magical. Considering that he was struggling with cramps and still made that 200 is something creditable.
DeleteRules are just that, to be followed and enforced. Sooky losers are just that. The looser should have been better prepared and organised for the match.
ReplyDeleteExactly. It would have been good if Angelo Mathews hadn't lost his cool after he was declared out but instead acknowledged that indeed it was a violation of the rule.
DeleteI think this rule should result in attracting a penalty instead of being given out. Time to change the rule.
ReplyDeleteHi Rajesh - I agree. They should modify the rule.
DeleteThere's always some technicality. It wouldn't be a sporting event without some drama.
ReplyDeleteI heard that the rules of cricket are ridiculously overcomplicated. This seems to indicate that is true.
ReplyDeleteI have no useful thoughts but am glad to find your new posts. Be well!
ReplyDeleteHi Darla - That's fine. Thank you.
DeleteI think that rules and reglamentatión must be followed exactly.
ReplyDeleteHi Vila - Yes, rule is a rule, however fair or unfair it is.
Delete