Indian cricket team fast bowler Jaydev Unadkat was extremely critical of Sri Lanka all-rounder Angelo Mathews over the ‘Timed Out’ controversy in Cricket World Cup 2023. Mathews became the first cricketer ever to be dismissed ‘Timed Out’ and that led to a massive debate involving the ‘spirit of cricket’. Mathews took to social media to give proof that he was able to reach the crease in time but a broken helmet strap did not allow him to take strike. According to an ESPNCricinfo report, umpire Richard Illingworth informed Mathews that he had 30 seconds left when the Sri Lankan batter walked in to bat against Bangladesh.
“This is why you should always listen to both sides of the story before jumping to conclusions and giving sympathy points. This is a cricket ground and not your backyard where you can laze around. if you expect sportsmanship, show some yourself first (by taking umpire’s consent to change the equipment and not just wandering off the pitch as if 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 called Twitter).
Meanwhile, in a long post on X (formerly Twitter), popular commentator Harsha Bhogle explained his take. The post was titled: “My thoughts on the Mathews-Shakib issue.”
“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. Second, 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,” Harsha Bhogle wrote.
“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.”
Bhogle went on to write in details about how appealing for a ‘timed out’ and for a run out at the non-striker’s end is not the same.
“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.”
“And let us leave spirit of cricket out of this. It is a weak argument often used by those that are ignorant or at the wrong end of a mistake. There are laws and you play within them. Beyond that, how to play the game is an individual choice.
“Mathews and Sri Lankan fans can be disappointed and angry but as per the laws of the game, he was out.”
Topics mentioned in this article