Angelo Mathews Raises Controversy Over Timed-Out Dismissal and Umpiring Decision

In a recent turn of events, Angelo Mathews, the Sri Lankan cricket star, has raised concerns and controversy regarding his timed-out dismissal during a crucial match against Bangladesh in the ICC Cricket World Cup. Mathews claims that the on-field umpires, Marais Erasmus and Richard Illingworth, admitted to the Sri Lankan coaching staff that they erred in not checking the time elapsed between his previous dismissal and the malfunction of his helmet strap, which ultimately led to his dismissal.

Angelo Mathews said

Mathews stated during his post-match press conference, “The umpires also admitted that it was an equipment malfunction and they could have gone upstairs and checked.” This admission has sparked discussions within the cricketing community, and Sri Lanka‘s coach, Chris Silverwood, confirmed that conversations between the team’s coaching staff and match officials are ongoing.

The controversy revolves around what constitutes a fair “timed out” dismissal and how much time should be considered as time taken out of the game to replace faulty equipment. According to the current playing conditions, there are no specific allowances for equipment malfunctions, and the rule dictates that a new batter must be ready to receive the ball within two minutes of the previous dismissal, which Mathews did not strictly adhere to.

However, it is common practice for umpires to allow equipment changes mid-over when necessary, especially for items like helmets and bats. If the strap on Mathews’ helmet had broken earlier in his innings, there might not have been any issues with him calling for a replacement and taking some time to choose one.

Mathews argues that player safety should be a priority and questioned the decision not to check the equipment malfunction at that time, but rather retrospectively. He said, “You need to have your common sense in terms of using technology. It was clearly malfunction – it [the strap] just came off. I didn’t need to pull it and break it.”

During the match’s mid-break, fourth umpire Adrian Holdstock had stated that Mathews wasn’t ready to receive the ball within the specified two minutes even before the strap became an issue. However, Mathews claims he had five more seconds before the two minutes were up when the strap broke, adding further complexity to the situation.

The debate raises questions about the responsibility of players regarding their equipment and whether they should anticipate equipment malfunctions. Mathews found the idea laughable, stating, “Something coming off, do you really think I would know if it’s going to come off? I don’t understand the logic.”

This controversy has become a hot topic in the cricketing world, sparking discussions about the use of technology and the interpretation of rules in cricket. It remains to be seen how cricket’s governing bodies will address and clarify such situations in the future.

Stay updated with all the cricketing action, follow Cricadium on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram