The All New World Cup 2023 Thread.

[sussexpob]

Reckon Sri Lanka have enough runs anyway.

Pitch is a total road, I am not sure tbh

[Durhamfootman]

drama, eh?

batters being given a minute less by the ICC for this tournament to be ready to face a ball than stipulated in the MCC laws, seemingly

Players and captains take the ssip all the time over the length of time it takes to do anything in international cricket and in India in the IPL it takes at least 4 hours to play a game that shouldn't even take 3 hours, so I find it truly astonishing that a fuss is made over a minute.

Hey ho.... rules is rules

[sussexpob]

I don't blame Shakib for his appeal. It's within the laws of cricket.

If the laws of cricket run counter to safety concerns

Law 2 is actually quite clear in the fact that play should be suspended/held up if it is either unsafe or not sensible to continue, and this law is reference by the MCCs interpretation of Law 40 as being grounds for refusing an appeal for time out based on extraordinary circumstances, so no, I do not believe that the dismissal was legal. Its not exactly hard to demonstrate why its dangerous to have a batter wearing a helmet that could slip down and cover his view at any point, or fly off his head.... and even if its not deemed unsafe, I think we can all agree it is not "sensible" to insist he plays on. The umpires should have held up play while he replaced his helmet, and told Shakib to bugger off....

The guidance also states that being ready to face the next ball is taken from when a batsman is ready to guard, not actually ready to face the ball. Mathews was taking guard, so he was in fact ready as per the interpretation of the rules. It was only when he bent down into his batting stance that his helmet slipped down over his face, and he realised it was broken.

So in short, it should have been given not out, even if you wanted to be pedantic about the rules. The rule is clearly there to stop batsman wasting time unnecessarily, if they are wasting time due to something valid, it shouldnt be out.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Reckon Sri Lanka have enough runs anyway.

Pitch is a total road, I am not sure tbh

Plenty of balls to spare for BD. England now alone and lowly on two points.

[Durhamfootman]

and needing to win both of their final two games to have any chance of qualifying for the CT

[Arthur Crabtree]

Could beat NL.

[mikesiva]

Bangladesh 282-7

Shanto 90
Shakib 82

Madushanka 3-69

Bangladesh edge a little closer to securing a place in the Champions Trophy.

[Durhamfootman]

could they?

they should, but I'm not particualrly confident. A SL win today would have helped

[GarlicJam]

The guidance also states that being ready to face the next ball is taken from when a batsman is ready to guard, not actually ready to face the ball. Mathews was taking guard, so he was in fact ready as per the interpretation of the rules.

That is how I saw it, as it was unfolding. He had already met that part of the criteria.

[bigfluffylemon]

The guidance also states that being ready to face the next ball is taken from when a batsman is ready to guard, not actually ready to face the ball. Mathews was taking guard, so he was in fact ready as per the interpretation of the rules.

That is how I saw it, as it was unfolding. He had already met that part of the criteria.

Yep, completely agree.

[andy]

Shocking behaviour from shakib!! In an era where the game is trying to promote safety i.e. with the extra protection on helmets etc ...it's important the helmet is properly working and safe to use .....however sadly I'm not surprised....shakibs behaviour and attitude over the years has been horrendous and is getting worse with age ....if anyone else had done the things he had over the years they wouldn't be in the side let alone captaining ....so I can see why Mathews was so angry.....this will rumble on for a while here ..

[alfie]

and needing to win both of their final two games to have any chance of qualifying for the CT

Not quite. May well come to that ; but I'd expect Bangladesh to get well beaten by Australia in their last match (and probably Sri Lanka by NZ) ; so a reasonably large win over Netherlands - who are most unlikely to fare well against India - could well lift England's NRR past the other stragglers on four points.

Of course , a win , large or otherwise , over Netherlands certainly can't be assumed ! And they'd still want to not get smashed badly by Pakistan in the last match. So indeed simplest to aim for two wins - which would presumably secure qualification.

Then hoping their aim is rather better than it has been so far

[alfie]

The guidance also states that being ready to face the next ball is taken from when a batsman is ready to guard, not actually ready to face the ball. Mathews was taking guard, so he was in fact ready as per the interpretation of the rules.

That is how I saw it, as it was unfolding. He had already met that part of the criteria.

Yep, completely agree.

I certainly do not approve of Bangladesh appealing for that - very cynical taking advantage of rules. But apparently the 4th umpire has claimed that in fact Matthews was already in breach of the time limit before the helmet glitch was discovered. So technically quite correctly given out , and safety issues not a consideration.

Which leads me to wonder whether batsmen may in fact quite often stray over the time limit in taking guard ? But of course no-one is timing them on a stopwatch from slip , waiting to pounce...

Yet.

[bigfluffylemon]

The guidance also states that being ready to face the next ball is taken from when a batsman is ready to guard, not actually ready to face the ball. Mathews was taking guard, so he was in fact ready as per the interpretation of the rules.

That is how I saw it, as it was unfolding. He had already met that part of the criteria.

Yep, completely agree.

I certainly do not approve of Bangladesh appealing for that - very cynical taking advantage of rules. But apparently the 4th umpire has claimed that in fact Matthews was already in breach of the time limit before the helmet glitch was discovered. So technically quite correctly given out , and safety issues not a consideration.

Which leads me to wonder whether batsmen may in fact quite often stray over the time limit in taking guard ? But of course no-one is timing them on a stopwatch from slip , waiting to pounce...

Yet.

BBC says that from the moment the ball landed in the fielder's hand for the previous dismissal to the moment Matthews identifies the problem with the chin strap was 1 minute 54 seconds.

I'm sure you could go back over any number of previous matches and find periods where a player has taken longer than 2 minutes, for whatever reason. The rule is there to prevent deliberate timewasting, not to penalise batters for equipment failures.

[alfie]

Yes surely that is the intent of the rule. But how difficult that would be , asking umpires to judge intent (except in the most glaring examples : laws tend to be framed rather rigidly) : really up to the fielding captain to refrain from making an appeal just to try and scam a wicket in a case like this.

Dispute over timing as we are now seeing : raises the spectre of stopwatches at the ready in dressing rooms and press boxes as well as third umpire chairs... Hopefully we won't see any further examples of this rubbish. Why am I not totally confident this is so ?