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

[NameGoesHere]

38 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

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

 

Are you kidding me?  That's when you do the naagin dance, duh.

[AuxiliA]

Just now, 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.

 

The Intent and spirit part is up to the captains not umpires. If umpires became too subjective with laws then they will get accused of bais or maybe they really will become biased. 

[Texan]

In this rule, what is the timing of the "dismissal"? Does it mean the time at which the batsman was given out by the umpire or does it mean the time at which the batsman left the ground

[Lord]

2 minutes ago, AuxiliA said:

 

The Intent and spirit part is up to the captains not umpires. If umpires became too subjective with laws then they will get accused of bais or maybe they really will become biased. 

 

Umpires get accused of bias anyway. Maybe can involve 3rd umpire too, just sticking to rule isnt enough as it doesn't cover all possibilities.

 

Also no need to throw captains under the bus for their right to appeal

[Lord]

Just now, Texan said:

In this rule, what is the timing of the "dismissal"? Does it mean the time at which the batsman was given out by the umpire or does it mean the time at which the batsman left the ground

 

Dismissal.

[Texan]

11 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

Dismissal.

What does that mean? Is it the time the umpire gave it out? If it is, then it introduces more questions.

 

What if after the umpire gave it out, the batsman considers for 15 seconds whether to review it or not and at the end of 15 seconds decides not to review? In that case, the incoming batsman only has 1 min, 45 seconds to face the first ball. Hence, ICC needs to clearly articulate the timing of the dismissal unless it is clarified somewhere else in their rulebook. 

[Texan]

For big events such as this, a big timer should be displayed after a batsman gets out to clearly state how long incoming batsman has to face first ball. In tennis, these days there is a serve clock and player who exceeds the time limit can get a warning followed by a point penalty and more for more violations.

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, Texan said:

For big events such as this, a big timer should be displayed after a batsman gets out to clearly state how long incoming batsman has to face first ball. In tennis, these days there is a serve clock and player who exceeds the time limit can get a warning followed by a point penalty and more for more violations.

This is the first time it has happened in history.

[Nash]

36 minutes ago, G_B_ said:

popcorn time for indian fans...

 

they dont like either set of people. 

I like this situation because I can screw both team's fan without any consequences. lol

[Texan]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

This is the first time it has happened in history.

Understood about not having timer on screen, but clearly ICC were very lethargic in addressing rule changes for this mode of dismissal when it comes to protective equipment and use of DRS. They should not take any rule lightly.

 

We witnessed in the last World Cup how the winner of the Cup can be decided based on some arbitrary criteria. It is highly likely that people creating that rule thought at that time that it is highly unlikely to decide the outcome of a match and almost impossible to decide the final of a World Cup. But then it happened. So every rule must be properly re-examined in the light of improvements made to the game over the years. 

[Tillu]

[Austin 3:!6]

[Lord]

[rollingstoned]

From the horses mouth itself, Shakib saying that he is not sure if it is right or wrong but just did it to help the team win the game. 

[coffee_rules]

He says it was like a war and he had to take the decision to win. It's a cheap tway o win it like this is all.

 

[Mariyam]

Minnow fight. 

 

 

Nothing to see. *walks out*

[Lord]

5 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

From the horses mouth itself, Shakib saying that he is not sure if it is right or wrong but just did it to help the team win the game. 

 

and nothing wrong in that. Not his job to decide right or wrong if its within laws. Its upto the umpires.

[Serpico]

6 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

From the horses mouth itself, Shakib saying that he is not sure if it is right or wrong but just did it to help the team win the game. 

Well atleast he's admitting that it is just for the win instead of pretending like it is some moral crusade 

[singhvivek141]

Now we are seeing rise of new rivalries in Asia

 

Sri Lanka vs Bangladesh is now going to be a war like situation in every game from now onwards.

 

Pakistan vs Afghanistan is another set of fierce rivalry emerging through the shadows now, a rivalry which happens both in and out of the field. 

 

Now what should India do ? Help out our Hindu bros from Nepal and establish a new rivalry ?

[rollingstoned]

12 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

and nothing wrong in that. Not his job to decide right or wrong if its within laws. Its upto the umpires.

Well if it was as simple as just deciding that whatever is in the rules is necessarily and always correct then yes, maybe I shall agree. There are few if any umpires who are that strong to put their foot down in this sort of situation, maybe Dave shepherd might have.