Mathews was timed out vs Bangladesh [AP]
In a dramatic incident that has sent shockwaves through the cricketing world, Sri Lankan all-rounder, Angelo Mathews was handed an unprecedented 'timed out' dismissal in the World Cup 2023 clash against Bangladesh on Monday.
Harsha Bhogle weighs in on Angelo Mathews' historic 'timed out' dismissal
The Angelo Mathews timed-out incident, a first in the 146-year history of the sport, was initiated by Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan and has since become a hotbed of controversy and discussion.
Amidst this brewing storm, Harsha Bhogle weighed in with his perspective through a comprehensive post on Twitter titled "My thoughts on the Mathews-Shakib issue."
Bhogle, with his characteristic clarity and insight, stressed the importance of respecting the umpires' decision. In his view, their seasoned judgment is not to be questioned lightly, and the rules of cricket are sacrosanct.
"You have to believe the umpires. If they say two minutes 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. 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,” wrote Shakib Al Hasan.
Bhogle further elaborated on the nuances of this incident, distinguishing it from a non-striker's run-out. He pointed out that unlike in a run-out, where a batsman might seek an undue edge, Mathews gained no such advantage. Bhogle opined that a simple request from Mathews to adjust his helmet might have averted the appeal.
"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,” added the veteran commentator.
In a firm reproval to those citing the 'spirit of cricket', Bhogle argued that this often-used defence is generally a refuge for those at the receiving end of a lawful but harsh decision. He highlighted that while the laws of cricket are clear and non-negotiable, the manner in which players navigate these rules is a reflection of their personal ethos.
In wrapping up his analysis, Bhogle acknowledged the frustrations of Mathews, Sri Lankan fans, and sympathizers, but reiterated the unassailable fact – as per cricket's stringent laws, the dismissal was legitimate.
"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,” concluded Bhogle.
 "Jatin")
