MCC: Angelo Mathews could have avoided ‘Timed Out’ dismissal by alerting umpires to helmet issue sooner

The body have stated that the umpires were correct in their decision to rule out Mathews, but that there were actions Mathews could have taken, even after his helmet strap broke, to avert his dismissal.

The wicket came in Sri Lanka’s World Cup defeat to Bangladesh, with Mathews walking to the crease after the fall of Sadeera Samarawickrama. As Mathews was preparing to receive his first ball, a part of his helmet broke, and he signalled for a replacement to be brought on to the field. At this point, Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan enquired whether Mathews could be out under the ‘Timed Out’ law and, after Shakib was asked twice if he wanted to go through with his appeal, Mathews was sent on his way, the umpires deeming he had not been ready to receive the next delivery within two minutes of the fall of the previous wicket.

The dismissal sparked significant discussion and uproar, being the first time any player had been timed out in an international game. Allan Donald, the Bangladesh bowling coach, will leave his post after the World Cup after criticising his own side’s actions, while Mathews has been forthright in his stance that his helmet strap broke before the allotted time had expired, posting video ‘proof’ on social media of this fact. He also called Shakib’s decision to appeal “disgraceful” in his post-match press conference after the game.

The statement from the MCC makes clear that there was no other action that the umpires could have taken but to give Mathews timed out, but also that, had Mathews relayed that his helmet had broken to the umpires instantly, they could have called ‘time’, allowing him to be brought a replacement.

“The key part of the Law, on this occasion, is that the batter must ‘be ready to receive the ball’. Being on the field, or even at the wicket, is not enough to avoid being Timed out,” the MCC stated. “The batter must be in position for the bowler to be able to bowl inside the allotted time.

“The umpires determined that Mathews was not ready to face the ball within that two-minute allowance. He subsequently suffered an issue with his helmet, causing further delay.

“Had the umpires been informed of a significant, justifiable, equipment-related delay within the two-minute allowance, they could have treated it as a new type of delay (as they would when, for example, a bat breaks), possibly even calling Time, allowing for a resolution of that delay without the batter being at risk of being Timed out. However, it is important to note that both umpires determined the delay came after the two minutes had elapsed, and that Time had not been called before the appeal.

“Having taken more than 90 seconds to get to the 30-yard circle, Mathews appeared to notice that he was short on time, jogging the final few yards to the wicket. His helmet malfunction has since been shown to have taken place 1 minute and 54 seconds after the previous wicket had fallen. He had not, at this stage, begun to take guard and was not close to being in a position to receive the ball.

“When the helmet broke, it appears that Mathews did not consult with the umpires, which a player would be expected to do when seeking new equipment. Rather, he just signalled to the dressing room for a replacement. Had he explained to the umpires what had happened and asked for time to get it sorted out, they might have allowed him to change the helmet, perhaps calling Time and thus removing any possibility of being Timed out.

“Given that Time had not been called, and that at the time of the appeal more than two minutes had elapsed, the umpires correctly gave Mathews out. In fact, there was no other action for the umpires to take within the Laws of Cricket.”

[breakout id=”0″][/breakout]

The MCC, who are regarded as custodians of the game’s spirit as well as its laws, also offered their take on that side of the ‘timed out’ dismissal. Shakib could have withdrawn his appeal, given Mathews ultimately wasn’t ready because of a safety concern, but chose not to. “Such occasions are often rightfully held up as a positive example of the Spirit of Cricket,” the MCC said, but they also conceded that there are “shades of grey” in the interpretation of the Spirit of Cricket, and that “it is the players who will ultimately determine how their game is to be played”.

“The Spirit of Cricket is not owned by any one player, country or culture and that the game is played with subtle differences right across the globe,” the MCC said. “At the Spirit of Cricket’s core are the values of respect and fair play, yet its application is interpretive, as issues considered to be totally reasonable in the eyes of some may be deemed unacceptable to others.

“It is recognised that there are times when players will choose not to complete certain dismissals, not to appeal or, upon reflection, to withdraw an appeal. Provisions exist within the Laws of Cricket to facilitate these choices. It should be stressed that none of this is a requirement of the Laws of Cricket or the Spirit of Cricket, yet there are occasions when a fielding captain will feel that withdrawing an appeal, for example, would be ‘the right thing to do’, and such occasions are often rightfully held up as a positive example of the Spirit of Cricket.

“A good illustration of this is the 2022 Christopher Martin-Jenkins Spirit of Cricket award. The recipient, Nepal’s Aasif Sheikh, refused to run out Ireland’s Andy McBrine, who had been accidentally upended by bowler Kamal Airee while attempting a run. Had Aasif run out McBrine, he would have been well within his rights under the Laws of Cricket, and nobody could reasonably say that he had acted outside the Spirit of Cricket. However, he chose to take a different course of action, and in doing so, rightly earned plaudits the world over.

“Whilst the Laws and Playing Conditions govern the game, much like within legislation which governs society and other sporting codes, there will be frequent shades of grey in interpretation and not all scenarios can be foreseen and specifically codified. In these instances, it is the players who will ultimately determine how their game is to be played.”