Indian cricket team fast bowler Jaydev Unadkat was extremely critical of the Sri Lankan all-rounder Angelo Mathews over the ‘Timed Out’ controversy in Cricket World Cup 2023. Mathews became the first ever cricketer to be dismissed ‘Timed Out’ and it led to a massive debate involving the ‘spirit of cricket’. Mathews took to social media to provide evidence that he was able to reach the crease in time, but a broken helmet strap prevented him from batting. According to an ESPNCricinfo report, umpire Richard Illingworth informed Mathews that he had 30 seconds left when the Sri Lankan batsman walked in to bat against Bangladesh.
“That’s why you should always listen to both sides of the story before jumping to conclusions and offering sympathy. This is a cricket ground, not your backyard lazing around. If you expect sportsmanship, show some of yours even first (by taking the umpire’s consent to change equipment and not just walk off the pitch like you don’t care),” Unadkat wrote on social media, citing the report.
Unadkat slams Mathews and deleted the tweet. pic.twitter.com/0cIsrBR1KJ
— Dude (@Naveens2607) November 9, 2023
However, Unadkat later deleted his post from the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter).
Meanwhile, in a lengthy post on X (formerly Twitter), popular commentator Harsha Bhogle explained his stance. The post was titled: “My thoughts on the Mathews-Shakib issue.”
“You have to believe the referees. If they say two minutes have passed, they have because these are very experienced and very good referees and they are unlikely to make those mistakes. Second is ignorance of the law no defense. If the law is there and you’ve broken it, you don’t have a leg to stand on,” wrote Harsha Bhogle.
“Shakib was within his right to appeal and it’s not for us to decide whether he should have or not. It’s his decision, that’s how he wants to play.”
Bhogle went on to write in detail how the attractiveness of a ‘timeout’ and of a run out at the non-striker’s end are not the same.
“However, this case is different from backing up too far at the non-striker’s end. There the batsman seeks or gains an unfair advantage and the bowler must run him out if possible. But here Mathews got no advantage and that was neither does he. looking for anyone. Batters routinely pick up a ball in play to give it to the bowler or a fielder and no one appeals, even though cautious batters ask if they can. Ditto here if Mathews had asked if it was okay to change his helmet, I’m sure there would have been no appeal. To that extent it was unfortunate. I’d drive a non-striker out any day of the week, but I wouldn’t appeal this.”
“And let’s leave the spirit of cricket out of this. It’s a weak argument often used by those who are ignorant or on the wrong end of a mistake. There are laws and you play within them. Besides that, how does one play one played is an individual choice.
“Mathews and Sri Lankan fans may be disappointed and angry but according to the laws of the game he was out.”
Topics mentioned in this article