Cricket World Cup 2023

[Petcha]

That was the worst LBW decision of the world cup. Thumping into his gloves.

 

[planetgeli]

That was the worst LBW decision of the world cup. Thumping into his gloves.

Maybe. But I don't think that's what this game will be remembered for.

 

[Petcha]

Well it was quite impressive Bangladesh even knew about that rule. I certainly didn't know it existed.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If he hadn't taken the field, that would be one thing, but that he was out there but struggling with his helmet is quite another.

Rule needs changing to add something about umpire's discretion and reasons for being unable to face such as equipment failure. That's a bad faith appeal.

This from cricinfo:

So the broadcast just showed the full incident clearly. Essentially Mathews was ready to take strike when his strap broke. He called for a new helmet and while that wait ensued, Shakib appealed.

 

[Petcha]

If he had faced one ball with a broken strap he would have been fine. Like all of us he was clearly unaware of that rule.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If he had faced one ball with a broken strap he would have been fine. Like all of us he was clearly unaware of that rule.

Which makes the rule totally absurd. You can have equipment failure, and take as long as you like over it, as long as it doesn't happen while you're facing up to your first ball.

His strap broke while he was out there.

Umpires at fault here. They should have warned him that he didn't have time to get a new helmet.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This will lead to a rule change, I think. Totally absurd.

 

[1927]

He was facing a spinner so yes, could/should have just faced a ball, but as pointed out on cricinfo, there is such a fuss about concussion protocols nowadays that he was well within his rights to say that he needed to fix the helmet and could not face a ball until he had on safety grounds.

Not only should Bangladesh not have appealed, the umpires should not have given him out. He had equipment failure.

Well the fact that the commentators didn't suggest that he had the option of facing a ball without a helmet would suggest maybe that wasnt on, but I'm guessing the batter wasn't expecting an appeal for a wicket. The wording of the law is interesting tho, it says "if the batter elects to wear a helmet" that the helmet must comply with the regs. By entering field with a helmet he has "elected" to wear a helmet! And the helmet wasn't compliant.

 

[1927]

Which makes the rule totally absurd. You can have equipment failure, and take as long as you like over it, as long as it doesn't happen while you're facing up to your first ball.

His strap broke while he was out there.

Umpires at fault here. They should have warned him that he didn't have time to get a new helmet.

He didnt tell the umpires tho, until after he had been given out!

 

[Petcha]

Only in cricket do these bizarre situations come up

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well the fact that the commentators didn't suggest that he had the option of facing a ball without a helmet would suggest maybe that wasnt on, but I'm guessing the batter wasn't expecting an appeal for a wicket. The wording of the law is interesting tho, it says "if the batter elects to wear a helmet" that the helmet must comply with the regs. By entering field with a helmet he has "elected" to wear a helmet! And the helmet wasn't compliant.

Right, so basically the laws are contradictory.

As I said, this will lead to a change in the laws. Sad that things need to be added to prevent bad faith actions, but here we are.

 

[1927]

If he had faced one ball with a broken strap he would have been fine. Like all of us he was clearly unaware of that rule.

Ignorance of law is no defence, but he would have known about the law as a pro. Even in my days if playing village cricket we knew about it.

 

[1927]

Right, so basically the laws are contradictory.

As I said, this will lead to a change in the laws. Sad that things need to be added to prevent bad faith actions, but here we are.

How are they contradictory?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Only in cricket do these bizarre situations come up

This one's clear-cut for me, though. With mankads or stumpings of dozy batters, there is at least room for two opinions. Anyone who thinks Shakib was right here is a wrongun.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ignorance of law is no defence, but he would have known about the law as a pro. Even in my days if playing village cricket we knew about it.

Timed out isn't an obscure law tbf. But as he was already out there and ready to face when it happened, it clearly didn't occur to him that it would apply in this situation, nor that any opposing captain would appeal for it.

 

[1927]

A Bangladesh win is bad news for England.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well the fact that the commentators didn't suggest that he had the option of facing a ball without a helmet would suggest maybe that wasnt on, but I'm guessing the batter wasn't expecting an appeal for a wicket. The wording of the law is interesting tho, it says "if the batter elects to wear a helmet" that the helmet must comply with the regs. By entering field with a helmet he has "elected" to wear a helmet! And the helmet wasn't compliant.

The helmet became non-compliant after he had entered the field of play. Surely that gives the umpires room to manoeuvre and refuse the appeal. Or at the very least ask Shakib if he wants to withdraw it.

 

[Petcha]

This one's clear-cut for me, though. With mankads or stumpings of dozy batters, there is at least room for two opinions. Anyone who thinks Shakib was right here is a wrongun.

No, of course it was a cunt's move. Even more so given that Bangladesh are already eliminated.

 

[1927]

The helmet became non-compliant after he had entered the field of play. Surely that gives the umpires room to manoeuvre and refuse the appeal. Or at the very least ask Shakib if he wants to withdraw it.

But not after he faced first ball. Its like if he walked out without his bat, or pads.

 

[1927]

No, of course it was a cunt's move. Even more so given that Bangladesh are already eliminated.

But they need a top 8 finish.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Its like if he walked out without his bat, or pads.

No it's not. If I read it correctly, the helmet strap broke as he was putting it on.

 

[Petcha]

Ignorance of law is no defence, but he would have known about the law as a pro. Even in my days if playing village cricket we knew about it.

Really? I've honestly never heard of it!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But they need a top 8 finish.

Yeah. It's a big game for Bangladesh. And Sri Lanka. For that reason.

 

[Petcha]

It's only happened 6 times in the history of the first class game around the world and never in international cricket so Mathews quite possibly had no idea

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's only happened 6 times in the history of the first class game around the world and never in international cricket so Mathews quite possibly had no idea

He'll have known there was a timed out rule. 1927 knew of it and so did I. He may well not have known the precise wording, though. I actually thought the rule was 'enter the field of play' rather than 'ready to face the first ball'.

 

[Petcha]

He'll have known there was a timed out rule. 1927 knew of it and so did I. He may well not have known the precise wording, though.

Well yes I knew about the timed out rule but the technicality around not being allowed to change your helmet when you realise it breaks before facing your first ball. That's new to me.

 

[planetgeli]

A Bangladesh win is bad news for England.

Seems a bit by the by but it would be better for England for Bangladesh to win. Based on remaining fixtures. If SL win, and I hope they do now, it takes another team out of the equation that England can overtake.

 

[1927]

Seems a bit by the by but it would be better for England for Bangladesh to win. Based on remaining fixtures. If SL win, and I hope they do now, it takes another team out of the equation that England can overtake.

So its better for England if Sri Lanka win!

 

[1927]

As an aside I found a quiz question posed online. What is the minimum number of balls required to be bowled to dismiss all 10 batters?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As an aside I found a quiz question posed online. What is the minimum number of balls required to be bowled to dismiss all 10 batters?

So the answer is 'none'?