2023 ODI World Cup Discussion

[eugene]

A disgraceful appeal for Shakib to make. If Angelo was wasting time that would be one thing, but his helmet strap broke. What is he meant to do, compromise safety? This is worse than the Ashes stumping.

[andrea lanzoni]

A disgraceful appeal for Shakib to make. If Angelo was wasting time that would be one thing, but his helmet strap broke. What is he meant to do, compromise safety? This is worse than the Ashes stumping.

I agree.
Maybe in the Ashes stumping there could have been a (very) remote benefit of good faith.
Here not at all.

In the after match press conference Angelo has been fully convincing. Especially when he called for his personal safety to face a bowler with non performing helmet.
ICC playing conditions are contradictory.

[secretzimbo]

. Especially when he called for his personal safety to face a bowler with non performing helmet.
ICC playing conditions are contradictory.

Don’t kid yourself, the guy has probably faced tens of thousands of balls from spinners in a cap only during his career. Probably even against Shakib himself at some point

[secretzimbo]

The match officials report have stated that Matthews took longer than 2 minutes to reach the crease, even before he seemed to realise the helmet malfunction.

[Pat_Bee]

I’d have to say I’m of the rules are rules suck it up boys school of thought.

That said, I wouldn’t be making these kinds of appeals myself but each to his own.

[andrea lanzoni]

. Especially when he called for his personal safety to face a bowler with non performing helmet.
ICC playing conditions are contradictory.

Don’t kid yourself, the guy has probably faced tens of thousands of balls from spinners in a cap only during his career. Probably even against Shakib himself at some point

You are missing the point.
What's at stake is not if Angelo is a "capped braveheart" or not.
It's not at stake whether playing conditions rule to wear helmets, at least against seam bowlers.

What is at stake is that personal safety IS NOT a matter to be decided by ICC.

Facing or not a bowler with malfunctioning helmet is to be a respected decision of the player alone.
No big wigs governing body must state playing conditions which go against it.

If a player wants to feel protected even against a 55 mph, we can only accept and respect it.

If such a player is to be penalized marks a watershed between what is common sense and what is not.

If Shakim states that "he is at war on the ground", please let's crowdfund to pay him a few psychiatric sessions: he badly needs them.

[secretzimbo]

If the safety of it is so critical and life affirming as you state then here’s an idea; he should have checked his equipment before he went out to the middle?

Also you are ignoring the point that the match referee has released a statement saying Matthew’s took more than two minutes to get to the middle BEFORE he even realised his helmet had an issue.

And yeah, it’s a World Cup, the absolute pinnacle of your life’s work - why can’t they treat it as war? I say you need to toughen up a bit. This is elite professional sport and there is a lot on the line.

[zimbos_05]

The umpires have no choice in this situation. If Shakib insists on upholding his appeal, then they have to review the appeal based on the rule, not the fact that the strap broke.

I have not reviewed the whole footage, but from what I read, it took him longer than 2 minutes to reach the crease. When the strap breaks, he should inform the umpire or Shakib to see if they will allow a change.

Another argument of the spirit of the game, but umpires did nothing wrong.

[Kriterion_BD]

Regardless he could have faced a spinner without a helmet and called for a new helmet before the next over. But apparently he was already timed out even before the helmet issue.

I say apparently because someone posted a screenshot of only 1 min 50s elapsing when Mathew’s was ready to face apparently. IDK if that was “doctored” because broadcasters usually don’t time it…so they had to done it after the fact and may have started it a little later to make it look like bad call!

Either way wouldn’t have affected the outcome of the game much I don’t think.

[Googly]

It's nonsense to talk about the spirit of the game when you consider the outrageous sledging of the past. Then the culprits want to shake hands after saying some really shit things and perhaps even have a beer afterwards.
Some of the shit things said would immediately kick off an actual physical fight in a social environment where I come from.
The good thing about present day cricket is that sledging has really died down. Anyway my point is that "spirit of the game" has always been a questionable thing.
The Mankad ruling I think is a good thing because those quick singles on offer down to the keeper's end have been changing outcomes of games for decades.
The timeout is interesting- what happens if the batter has to come down off a balcony? At Lords you'd probably have to rappel down the side of the building to get there on time.
I can't find Mathew's presser but he was adamant he was within the time limit. The broken strap is a bit lame, I mean check your kit. Most guys actually sit there with their helmets on at some point. My point is it was seconds either way. If he'd taken his guard immediately it would have changed the outcome...or would it? The law states he must be ready to receive the ball. So if he takes his guard and then has an equipment malfunction he's still not ready.

Here's an interesting one- say the batter hadn't even crossed the rope, then you could surely sacrifice your number 11?
So could Mathews not have done the same thing?

I've seen batters (tail enders) walk onto the field having forgotten their bat.