The decision to rule Sri Lankan batsman Angelo Mathews timed out has split the cricketing world. While some say the gentleman’s game was brought under disrepute, some others say the Bangladeshi captain was well within his rights to appeal as he had the defence of law.
As the debate and discussion grow, commentator Harsha Bhogle has jumped into the fray, throwing his weight behind the umpires and the Bangladeshi captain.
In a detailed post on X, he said, “You have to believe the umpires. If they say two minutes had elapsed, they had because these are vastly experienced, and very good, umpires and they are unlikely to make those mistakes.”
">November 7, 2023
He also touched upon the topic of knowledge of the laws and stressed that the ignorance of laws is no defence.
“Ignorance of the law is no defence. If the law is there and you have infringed it, you don't have a leg to stand upon. Shakib was within his rights to appeal and it is not for us to decide whether or not he should have. That is his decision, that is how he wants to play,” he noted.
Interestingly, he compared this mode of dismissal to the running out of the non-striker. He underlined the fact that while a runner is at an advantage, in this instance of Mathews getting timed out, there was no such advantage.
“This case is different though from backing up too far at the non-striker's end. There the batter is seeking, or getting, an unfair advantage and the bowler must run him out if possible. But here Mathews was getting no advantage nor was he seeking any. Batters routinely pick up a ball in play to give it to the bowler or a fielder and no one appeals, though careful batters ask if they can. Ditto here, if Mathews had asked if it was okay to change his helmet, I am certain there would have been no appeal. To that extent, it was unfortunate. I would run a non-striker out every day of the week but I wouldn't appeal for this,” he observed.
Angelo Mathews timed out: Here’s what commentator Harsha Bhogle thinks
The decision to rule Sri Lankan batsman Angelo Mathews timed out has split the cricketing world. While some say the gentleman’s game was brought under disrepute, some others say the Bangladeshi captain was well within his rights to appeal as he had the defence of law.
As the debate and discussion grow, commentator Harsha Bhogle has jumped into the fray, throwing his weight behind the umpires and the Bangladeshi captain.
In a detailed post on X, he said, “You have to believe the umpires. If they say two minutes had elapsed, they had because these are vastly experienced, and very good, umpires and they are unlikely to make those mistakes.”
">November 7, 2023
He also touched upon the topic of knowledge of the laws and stressed that the ignorance of laws is no defence.
“Ignorance of the law is no defence. If the law is there and you have infringed it, you don't have a leg to stand upon. Shakib was within his rights to appeal and it is not for us to decide whether or not he should have. That is his decision, that is how he wants to play,” he noted.
Interestingly, he compared this mode of dismissal to the running out of the non-striker. He underlined the fact that while a runner is at an advantage, in this instance of Mathews getting timed out, there was no such advantage.
“This case is different though from backing up too far at the non-striker's end. There the batter is seeking, or getting, an unfair advantage and the bowler must run him out if possible. But here Mathews was getting no advantage nor was he seeking any. Batters routinely pick up a ball in play to give it to the bowler or a fielder and no one appeals, though careful batters ask if they can. Ditto here, if Mathews had asked if it was okay to change his helmet, I am certain there would have been no appeal. To that extent, it was unfortunate. I would run a non-striker out every day of the week but I wouldn't appeal for this,” he observed.
LATEST UPDATES