Jump to content

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

Number

By Number
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

Lord Grand Master

Lord

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Trichromatic said:

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?

 

yes. Also for team to have two batsmen ready so if one has a problem, other can go in.

tapandrun Grand Master

tapandrun

Posted
Posted

Sakib was is his rights to appeal if there is such a rule, rules are meant for something.

 

If this is wrong they why is it there is rule books. As for the equipment failure or say a bug gets in to batters eyes -The rule should change that only umpires can give out f they deem if batter is wasting the time, but again this will also cause controversy as few umpires will be reluctant to give out and few may think otherwise.

 

 

 

 

AuxiliA Grand Master

AuxiliA

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

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

 

Well imagine the implications if the Umpires strictly start giving every batter out if they don't meet the 2 minute cutoff. That will lead to way more unnecessary drama and controversies. 

 

They also can't just remove the 'timed out' rule coz then batters will exploit that in many scenarios and also cause delay.

 

That's why it's left upto the bowling captains to make the appeal if they feel their team is wronged. Like delaying in order to draw a test. But in this case Shakib was not 'wronged' at all. That's why his appeal looks so petty, but still legal.

 

 

 

 

Texan Grand Master

Texan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Trichromatic said:

This rule should be modfied to ensure that batsman is out only if they fail to take ground within 3 minutes.

Correct. For equipment malfunction, an additional two minutes must be provided for the batsman to fix the equipment or for another batsman to take strike with the correct equipment. I think this rule never got revised in the light of protective equipment. 

Lord Grand Master

Lord

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, AuxiliA said:

 

Well imagine the implications if the Umpires strictly start giving every batter out if they don't meet the 2 minute cutoff. That will lead to way more unnecessary drama and controversies. 

 

They also can't just remove the 'timed out' rule coz then batters will exploit that in many scenarios and also cause delay.

 

That's why it's left upto the bowling captains to make the appeal if they feel their team is wronged. Like delaying in order to draw a test. But in this case Shakib was not 'wronged' at all. That's why his appeal looks so petty, but still legal.

 

 

 

 

 

Where did I say directly give out? I am in fact saying umpire need to assess the situation and should be able to give not out too, just like any other decision.

 

Even if captain appeals, umpire should be able to give it not out.

Lord Grand Master

Lord

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Turns out that it was Mathews fault entirely. BD did well to appeal against him.

 

This dismissal had nothing to do with helmet. He would have been out even if there was no issue with his helmet.

yes he walked very leisurely to the crease. Strap issue happened afterwards

Texan Grand Master

Texan

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

What if there is a snake in that area preventing both of them to step out?

Fitness for play

2.7.1 It is solely for the umpires together to decide whether either conditions of ground, weather or light or exceptional circumstances mean that it would be dangerous or unreasonable for play to take place

AuxiliA Grand Master

AuxiliA

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

Where did I say directly give out? I am in fact saying umpire need to assess the situation and should be able to give not out too, just like any other decision.

 

Even if captain appeals, umpire should be able to give it not out.

 

Umpires are like Aandha Kanoon lol. They are trained to strictly apply the rules, which they did in this case. Matthews was legally out, he was not ready to face the bowler within 2 mins due to his own fault. Can't fault the umpires here.

Lord Grand Master

Lord

Posted
Posted
Just now, AuxiliA said:

 

Umpires are like Aandha Kanoon lol. They are trained to strictly apply the rules, which they did in this case. Matthews was legally out, he was not ready to face the bowler within 2 mins due to his own fault. Can't fault the umpires here.

 

But they shouldn't be. Laws can't cover every possible situation. Intent and spirit of law matters too.

 

We see judges giving judgements on new situations regularly.

Trichromatic Grand Master

Trichromatic

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

But they shouldn't be. Laws can't cover every possible situation. Intent and spirit of law matters too.

 

We see judges giving judgements on new situations regularly.

 

Courts technically can't give judgements bypassing laws.

 

Share examples of such new situations?

Lord Grand Master

Lord

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Courts technically can't give judgements bypassing laws.

 

Share examples of such new situations?

 

Not bypassing, but focussing on intent of the law rather than the exact wording.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...