Angelo Mathews was timed out against Bangladesh in their World Cup 2023 league fixture in Delhi yesterday. Unusually, the fourth umpire gave an interview explaining the situation. The interviewer was Ian Bishop. Here is a transcript:
Bishop: Adrian, really sorry to be putting you in this position first of all. Nobody wants to be talking about peripheral incidents. But just give us an indication of what transpired out in the middle with the Mathews dismissal.
Umpire Holdstock: Thank Ian. First I would just like to say, and mention the the ICC World Cup Playing Conditions [pdf, see pg. 70 for Law 40] supersede the MCC Laws of Cricket. When it comes to Timed Out, at the fall of a wicket or even at the retirement of the batsman, the incoming batter has to be in position and ready to receive the ball within 2 minutes, or his other partner to receive the ball within 2 minutes. And we have certain protocols within the PCT where the TV Umpire basically monitors the 2 minutes and he will then relay the message to the on-field umpires. In the instance this afternoon, the batter wasn’t ready to receive the ball within those two minutes even before the strap became an issue for him.
Bishop: Right. So just to be clear, even before the strap burst and became an issue the time had already elapsed.
Umpire Holdstock: That is correct. So the two minutes had already elapsed before he had to receive the next delivery.
Bishop: Who initiated the appeal.
Umpire Holdstock: According to Law and the Playing Conditions the fielding captain requested, or initiated the appeal to Marais Erasmus who was the standing umpire that he want to appeal for Timed Out.
Bishop: So, was that before the strap came loose or was that after that incident?
Umpire Holdstock: Like I said, just after the strap came loose the fielding captain came to appeal for Timed Out.
Bishop: So in that case there is no discretion to be used for equipment malfunction.
Umpire Holdstock: No, I think as a batsman you need to have all your equipment in place in order to make sure you get actually here because you actually have to be ready to receive the ball within two minutes, not ready to appear or take your guard. So technically you should be there within 15 seconds to make sure all those things are in place before you actual receive the ball.
Most reporting of umpire Holdstock’s interview includes Holdstock’s first response. Bishop suggests in the interview that he thinks the strap breaking is legally significant. Holdstock’s last reply, essentially shuts that down. Holdstock points out that the batter has to be ready to receive the ball - that this is the batter’s responsibility. As to the Law, Holdstock is entirely correct. Law 40 in the World Cup playing conditions is as follows:
Mathews has responded via this tweet, claiming that it vindicates his view that he was at the crease within two minutes. I reproduce the two images in Mathews’ tweet below (since the Twitter - Substack war ended embedding). The following things are objectively true:
1. The gap between the two screenshots is less than two minutes.
2. Mathews is not ready to receive the ball within two minutes as the law requires. So that second picture cannot be the correct end frame under Law 40 for the point Mathews is making.
3. The second picture timestamped 15:50:45:14 does not show a broken strap. Mathews claims that this frame is where the strap broke. But the picture does not show this.
The situation with the strap is legally irrelevant. The law puts the responsibility on the batter for being ready to receive the ball within two minutes.
There is a temptation in all such situations to pick a side and advocate for it. I suggest that it is better to evaluate the available facts and the law as dispassionately and precisely as possible without involving arbitrary, vague externalities like “context” or “history”. In cricket, which is a game constituted by a complete set of laws (by complete, I mean that there are no actions on the cricket field whose legal relevance is unknown or ambiguous).
Take for example this notion of “equipment malfunction” as a “mitigating factor”. This is entirely made up. The strap is the batter’s responsibility. Mathews was yet to face a ball. Nothing that happens to any of his equipment can be considered a consequence of his presence on the field yet, because he is yet to participate in the play. Being “ready to receive the ball” is a legally signifiant phrase, because the batter being ready in this way allows the bowler to set off on his run up, thereby bringing the ball into play. The ball was Dead under Law 20 following the dismissal on the previous delivery, and had not yet come back into play.
Now, there is a possible case in which the fielding side does not appeal. In such an event, the Timed Out dismissal will not occur since there has been no appeal from the fielding side. Under Law 31, there can only be a dismissal in cricket if the fielding side appeals for one.
31.1 Umpire not to give batter out without an appeal
Neither umpire shall give a batter out, even though he/she may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batter who is out under any of the Laws from leaving the wicket without an appeal having been made. Note, however, the provisions of 31.7.
Two further points need to be made.
First, the laws of cricket are arbitrary. They do not derive from any principles of natural justice or from any common law. They are complete precisely because they are arbitrary. This is an essential property of all games (but not of politics or culture). It would be impossible, for example, to justify why a batter had to be out if a legal delivery broke the batter’s stumps. So, wondering why the law is a certain way beyond the fact that it being a certain way allows it to fit neatly into an internally consistent legal structure, is futile. Your idea of “common sense” (or mine) is irrelevant here. In cricket, sense (such as it is) comes entirely and only from the Laws of Cricket. Further, one can debate what a particular Law in cricket should be, but this discussion has no bearing on whether the Law as it is was correctly applied in a game in which both teams have agreed beforehand (as all World Cup 2023 participants agreed) that it applies.
Second, it is one thing to suggest that the fielding side could be generous and not enforce Timed Out for some feudal reason (“he’s a senior player”, “some laws are best honored in the breach than in the observance” , “it will upset the opposition”). It is quite another to demand such generosity from an opponent. Mathews or any player is not entitled to such courtesy any more than Mathews is entitled to not being bounced by the opposition quick bowler because of his seniority. When a team, like SL in this case, acts as though they are entitled to such considerations from their opponents, that is a breach of the Spirit of Cricket. That preamble to the Laws is often trotted out as the basis of this entitlement, but its actual text, as usual, is mostly ignored.
BAN did play both hard and fair - they used the laws to their advantage.
Mathews did not respect the authority of the umpires.
Mathews did not respect the opposition even though BAN objectively did not take a single step outside the Laws. Yet, Mathews says he has never seen a team or a player stoop so low. He says it was “disgraceful from Shakib and BAN”.
Mathews and SL have obliterated the Spirit of Cricket.
The same pattern which is evident with Mankading is evident here. It goes something like this:
Batter disregards the law.
Batter gets caught out by the opposition
Batter claims he did nothing wrong and that the opposition (essentially) cheated.
Batter is not apparently responsible for anything
A large chunk of the commentariat acts as though applying the law is an outrage.
As Umpire Holdstock put it, the batter is responsible for making sure he’s ready to receive the ball within 2 minutes with all his equipment properly in place.
If the laws are to be set aside arbitrarily as SL and Mathews’ supporters demand, then there’s no cricket left. If people can make stuff up about the laws, add things to laws which are not actually there and call it “common sense”, then there’s no cricket left. Cricket is constituted by its laws. No cricket team is entitled to expect that their opponents will not enforce a law to their advantage. That’s what competing hard and fair in sport essentially is - to gain an advantage within the laws of the sport.