2023 ICC Men's Cricket World Cup Game 38 Bangladesh v Sri Lanka 6/11 1900hrs @ Arun Jaitley Stadium

[PhatBoy]

I heard a lot of this "HOW DARE THEY" bleating when bowlers started running out the non-striker. For a while it almost never happened, then we had a handful of incidents along with a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but guess what? The non-striker pretty much always stays behind the crease these days where he belongs. One or two players get timed out for sauntering along, wasting time, and then finding out they're not ready to take strike after all and I guarantee they'll all stop carrying on.

That addressed an existent problem.

WhT is the problem this addresses? Former Sri Lankan captains arriving at the crease well within their allotted time only to discover a problem beyond their control? Please enlighten us

 

[Grasshopper17]

Yeah sorry but you can’t dictate to a player whether he should wear a helmet or not. A wicketkeeper wouldn’t stand at the stumps without one, why the f**k should a batsman just because you don’t have the coping skills to wait the requisite 90 seconds for one of his teammates to bring him a functional one

No but you can dictate how long a batsman has to be ready to face his first ball. We know this; it happened last night. If (in the opinion of the batsman) having a helmet does dictate whether he is able to face his first ball, then by extension, yes, the rules of the game do indeed dictate to a player whether he should wear a helmet or not.

And wicketkeepers stood at the stumps without a helmet for over a hundred years, and in many lower leagues they still do.

Hopefully at some stage you are able to acquire the coping skills to be able to deal with this reality.

 

[PhatBoy]

No but you can dictate how long a batsman has to be ready to face his first ball. We know this; it happened last night. If (in the opinion of the batsman) having a helmet does dictate whether he is able to face his first ball, then by extension, yes, the rules of the game do indeed dictate to a player whether he should wear a helmet or not.

And wicketkeepers stood at the stumps without a helmet for over a hundred years, and in many lower leagues they still do.

Hopefully at some stage you are able to acquire the coping skills to be able to deal with this reality.

Not if there’s extraneous circumstances you can’t. He was ready. He pulled a strap on his helmet as his bat was touching the centre mark on the crease.

Who gives a f***k what keepers did for over 100 years. They don’t now. Batsmen faced Jeff Thompson without helmets and in Roy Fredericks’ case smashed him to all corners of the fastest wicket on the planet.

Should every batsman not wear a helmet as a consequence?

It’s a decade since a cricketer was killed who was actually wearing a helmet because the ball hit him in the wrong spot. Is Mathews likely to suffer the same fate facing spin? No. But it doesn’t matter. He’s entitled to have his preferred safety equipment and if that equipment malfunctions through no fault of his own, that’s not grounds for dismissal.

If a fast bowler loses his two front spikes, you aren’t going to get on your high horse and demand he bowls spin because it’s safe - you let him change his shoes to a fully spiked pair.

I don’t need to cope with anything. Learn the difference between the application of a rule and the application of common sense

 

[Grasshopper17]

Not if there’s extraneous circumstances you can’t.

Actually, you can: that's exactly what happened last night. You really need to stop saying that certain things can't be done, when we have in fact seen them be done

If a fast bowler loses his two front spikes, you aren’t going to get on your high horse and demand he bowls spin because it’s safe - you let him change his shoes to a fully spiked pair.

Hmmmm, in the interests of ensuring the game continues at a reasonable speed I think this would be very prudent to be honest. Good suggestion.

Learn the difference between the application of a rule and the application of common sense

Even the cynics would agree the ability, rather than the inability, to differentiate successfully between the two served Shakib well last night.

I really think we're done here.

 

[PhatBoy]

Actually, you can: that's exactly what happened last night. You really need to stop saying that certain things can't be done, when we have in fact seen them be done


Hmmmm, in the interests of ensuring the game continues at a reasonable speed I think this would be very prudent to be honest. Good suggestion.


Even the cynics would agree the ability, rather than the inability, to differentiate successfully between the two served Shakib well last night.

I really think we're done here.

The pace of the game is sooooo important that a player breaking equipment through no fault of their own, should result in their dismissal, but we can spend two minutes watching a replay of a stumping that was visibly not out from front on, affording the bowling team an extra review for caught behind that they did not ask to use, and checking with uktra edge that the ball didn’t hit the pad so that the wide call can be rescinded.

Right. Oh yes the decision against Mathews last night is a real beacon for fast progression of the game

Shakib didn’t differentiate between shit. All he said was, after a fieldsman suggested to him that he could appeal, was that the umpire could time him out. Shakib didn’t give a shit about the circumstances. He made a right c***t of himself. No ifs, no buts.

 

[Generalissimo]

I think we found Angelo Mathews's bigfooty account.

 

[PhatBoy]

I think we found Angelo Mathews's bigfooty account.

What, because I don’t agree with batsmen, in a game where we see multiple times a game batsmen pulling away because of people moving behind sight screens, bowlers taking forever to set fields and have conferences, being dismissed for breaking equipment?

Oh yeah I’m him.

 

[Generalissimo]

If Mathews' bat had broken, causing a piece to fall on the stumps, that would be out. Or if his defective helmet had been knocked off by a bouncer and fell on the stumps, that would be out too. So it's not as though broken equipment can't result in a dismissal in other contexts. I have more sympathy for a player who gets out that way when their equipment breaks during play than a bloke who comes in at number six and their gear isn't fit for purpose before they face their first ball. And no, I don't think all the other time-wasting that goes on during a game is OK; the officials should be more willing to urge both teams to get a move on, enforcing it with penalty runs if need be.

 

[PhatBoy]

If Mathews' bat had broken, causing a piece to fall on the stumps, that would be out. Or if his defective helmet had been knocked off by a bouncer and fell on the stumps, that would be out too. So it's not as though broken equipment can't result in a dismissal in other contexts. I have more sympathy for a player who gets out that way when their equipment breaks during play than a bloke who comes in at number six and their gear isn't fit for purpose before they face their first ball. And no, I don't think all the other time-wasting that goes on during a game is OK; the officials should be more willing to urge both teams to get a move on, enforcing it with penalty runs if need be.

Yeah, in play. Oh yes. That’s a like for like comparison.