New Chapter in Naagin Rivalry : Matthews Timed Out | First batsman in the history

[Lord]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Once captain appeals ,umpires cannot do anything. It just like Mankad, or run out due to obstruction. If onfield captain appeals umpires have no choice but decalre the batsman out.

 

Its about interpretation of laws. The batter has to be ready to receive the ball within 2 minutes. Mathews was ready to receive until strap came off. So he can give it not out.

 

Mankad is completely different. That's just batsman taking unfair advantage

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

He was at the crease before 2 minutes and that is what matters. The law is vague. It says be ready to face. Shakib got it on technicality. 
 

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 2 minutes of the dismissal or retirement.

It looks more and more petty on Shakib's part. Their coach should have sent a message to withdraw the appeal.

 

But he is one who removed Matthews from SL team so there is some animosity there.

[Trichromatic]

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

He was at the crease before 2 minutes and that is what matters. The law is vague. It says be ready to face. Shakib got it on technicality. 
 

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 2 minutes of the dismissal or retirement.

 

What's vague about it? Mathews was not ready to face.

[Lord]

Just now, Trichromatic said:

 

What's vague about it? Mathews was not ready to face.

 

He was until strap came off.

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, Lord said:

 

Its about interpretation of laws. The batter has to be ready to receive the ball within 2 minutes. Mathews was ready to receive until strap came off. So he can give it not out.

 

Mankad is completely different. That's just batsman taking unfair advantage

Inzi was runout against India , all he was doing was protecting himself.That was not right either but Umpires were  powerless once Indians appealed.

 

My point about Mankad was umpires have to give that out once fielding team appeals. They  don't have any other choice just like today.

[Lord]

4 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Inzi was runout against India , all he was doing was protecting himself.That was not right either but Umpires were  powerless once Indians appealed.

 

My point about Mankad was umpires have to give that out once fielding team appeals. They  don't have any other choice just like today.

 

No Inzi was protecting his wicket there. But its upto impire's decision. The law says its only out if the obstruction is intentional to save the wicket.

[putrevus]

2 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

No Inzi was protecting his wicket there. But its upto impire's decision. The law says its only out if the obstruction is intentional to save the wicket.

That is instinct of any batsmen, he was not taking run there , so question of run out does not arise.

 

It was not umpire's decision then or today. It is always onfield captain's decision these technicalities.

 

Greg Chappell's  under arm incident, he was technically right there.But it was morally wrong and umpires had no choice there also.

Edited November 6, 2023 by putrevus

[Lord]

Just now, putrevus said:

That is instinct of any batsmen, he was not taking run there , so question of run out does not arise.

 

It was not umpire's decision then or today. It is onfield captain's decision.

 

He was out of the crease. The ball wouldn't have hit him if remained stood but he backed off and defending it.

It is. Final decision is of umpire. They conferred and gave it out.

[putrevus]

Just now, Lord said:

 

He was out of the crease. The ball wouldn't have hit him if remained stood but he backed off and defending it.

It is. Final decision is of umpire. They conferred and gave it out.

If Ganguly or Dravid withdrew their appeal they would have let him continue.

[coffee_rules]

15 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

What's vague about it? Mathews was not ready to face.

Ready to face he was, strap coming off was accidental and not intentional . Umpires and other senior heads in BD team should’ve taken the judgement call. Cricket is not just rules

[AuxiliA]

9 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Inzi was runout against India , all he was doing was protecting himself.That was not right either but Umpires were  powerless once Indians appealed.

 

My point about Mankad was umpires have to give that out once fielding team appeals. They  don't have any other choice just like today.

 

Not sure about that part. Inzi was way outside his crease when he lazily blocked Raina's  throw at the stumps. And that was a mild throw from Raina, Inzi could have easily dozed that. That was a textbook obstruction of field. 

[Lord]

Just now, putrevus said:

If Ganguly or Dravid withdrew their appeal they would have let him continue.

 

But why put onus on captain? Give it not out anyway. The decision stands and can't be reviewed further like DRS.

[coffee_rules]

6 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

But why put onus on captain? Give it not out anyway. The decision stands and can't be reviewed further like DRS.

The appeal is always under  the captain’s discretion. If he withdraws an appeal , the umpire decision can be reversed. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by coffee_rules

[putrevus]

2 minutes ago, AuxiliA said:

 

Not sure about that part. Inzi was way outside his crease when he lazily blocked Raina's  throw at the stumps. And that was a mild throw from Raina, Inzi could have easily dozed that. That was a textbook obstruction of field. 

I know but if you look in totality, he was not looking to take a run.IMO India should have withdrawn the appeal.

 

When Sachin got run out in Eden Gardens, I was so furious that Pakistan  even thought of appealing then.

 

But today's incident was completely on Shakib.

[NameGoesHere]

May I say this:

 

Hisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Now can we all Nagin dance?

[Lord]

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

The appeal is always under  the captain’s discretion. If he withdraws an appeal , the umpire decision can be reversed. 

 

I mean umpire should be able to give it not out even if the appeal stands.

[Lord]

7 minutes ago, putrevus said:

I know but if you look in totality, he was not looking to take a run.IMO India should have withdrawn the appeal.

 

When Sachin got run out in Eden Gardens, I was so furious that Pakistan  even thought of appealing then.

 

But today's incident was completely on Shakib.

 

There Shoaib had collided with Sachin

[coffee_rules]

6 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

I mean umpire should be able to give it not out even if the appeal stands.

That’s why they call it a gentleman’s game. Umpires play it by the rules . Players have discretion of it playing it in the spirit of sportsmanship! Because of some players like sadak chap  jahil captains like Shakib , they should change the rule to include discretion also stays with the umpires in such cases. They always warn players if they take unnecessary breaks or slowing down or walking on the pitch too! They use their discretion at that time.

[Lord]

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

That’s why they call it a gentleman’s game. Umpires play it by the rules . Players have discretion of it playing it in the spirit of sportsmanship! Because of some players like sadak chap  jahil captains like Shakib , they should change the rule to include discretion also stays with the umpires in such cases. They always warn players if they take unnecessary breaks or slowing down or walking on the pitch too! They use their discretion at that time.

 

Yeah umpire's word has to be final . It is ridiculous that once captain appeals, the umpire has to give out only.

[Trichromatic]

Every dismissal has some way to avoid it. 

 

What's the suggestion to batsman in this case? How can they avoid it if happens accidently?

 

Face 1 ball without helmet and then change it?