Angelo Mathews became the first batter in the history of international cricket to be given out ‘Timed Out’ during Sri Lanka’s clash against Bangladesh in Delhi today (November 6).
Despite the rarity of dismissals, it is hard to think of a time in the 146-year history of international cricket when they were not necessary. There have been several occasions in the past where this has come close to being triggered, the most memorable being during a Test match against South Africa in 2007 when Graham Smith decided to appeal and Sourav Ganguly was pardoned. That’s when it happened. Even in elite competitions and other national competitions, expulsion may occur in some cases.
It is important to have rules regardless of the frequency of use. This prevents wasted time when teams try to tie the game in the fourth inning. It also helps reduce the already disastrous overheating rate. But today’s firing of Matthews shows that the current law is in need of reform.
The relevant law in this case is set out under the ICC Terms of Play for the 2023 Men’s World Cup, which supersede the MCC Law. The rules are virtually the same except for the time allowed from an out until the next batter is ready to face the first ball of the innings. In the MCC he specifies this period as 3 minutes, while in the ICC he specifies it as 2 minutes. 90 seconds in a T20I game.
The first part of the ICC’s playing conditions states: “After the fall of a wicket or the dismissal of a batsman, the arriving batsman must be ready to receive the ball unless time has elapsed, or other batsmen must also be ready. Receive the next ball Receive the ball within two minutes after being sent off or eliminated. If this requirement is not met, the batter is out and given a timeout. ”
In Matthews’ case, the reason he wasn’t “ready to receive the ball” when he came to bat was because the chinstrap on his helmet was broken. In this particular case, as the spinner was bowling, Matthews could have waited for the next ball or waited until the end of the over to request a change, but the law requires There is no margin left in case unforeseen problems arise. There is a risk that the fabric will be wasted, so this needs to be improved. If he had a fast bowler, Matthews wouldn’t have had to choose between his safety kit working properly and potentially being dismissed before the ball. Still, there is no debate that what happened today was the correct decision based on the text of the current law.
Angelo Mathews has become the first batter in international cricket to be given out ‘timed out’.
デリーのBemerkenswerte Szenen 😮#BANvsSL #CWC2023 pic.twitter.com/um9R5x90bP< /p>
– Wisden (@WisdenCricket) 6. November 2023
This highlights the most important reason why current laws need to be updated. The power to decide whether to enforce redundancies remains in the hands of the field team. The jury reportedly asked Shakib Al Hasan twice today if he wanted to withdraw his appeal, but he refused and the decision could not be overturned. In the event of a real emergency or unforeseen situation, too much power is concentrated in the hands of the defensive captain, but in most cases the captain is one or a combination of the following: Hungry to win; A wicket has been busted under immense pressure or still pumping with adrenaline after the match.
In Ganguly’s case, two wickets fell in quick succession and there was confusion in the dressing room over whether Sachin Tendulkar would be allowed to bat. A clear message from the referees to the locker room was also missing, allowing Smith to decide not to apply the rule. Shakib today made the opposite decision to take the fourth wicket himself early in the innings as his side, who had won just one game in the competition so far, were desperate to qualify for the Champions Trophy. . This is not a criticism of Shakib. He had the right to appeal. But delicate decisions that rarely arise should not be left entirely to on-field captains who have different ideas about what constitutes a fair dismissal. Sport is about applying the rules consistently, not the mood of your opponent.
Instead, it should be at the referee’s discretion to decide whether to uphold the fielder’s team’s appeal or whether there is an exceptional reason for not entering the field within the time frame. Referees should not be powerless after a challenge has been made and should be able to control what happens on the pitch in a way that they clearly were not able to do today.
Today’s events in Derry have caused great drama and added a new level of competition between two teams in the bottom half of the table, but the law should not be fickle. They’re not there to say a memorable farewell or rain pearls on the “Spirit of Cricket.” They’re there to make the game easier, even if the processes and details can be surprisingly fiddly and pedantic.
To bet on the World Cup with our Match Centre Partners bet365 head here.
