Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have become fierce cricket rivals over the past few years, with shenanigans overshadowing the cricket they play. The latest episode from the ongoing men’s world cup is only going to fuel this colourful conflict.
—
BANGLADESH and Sri Lanka are at war, and are going to be in that state for the foreseeable future.
Like all classic stories of love and war, it is difficult to pinpoint one specific moment when the sparks began to fly and things were put in motion irretrievably.
The Luddite will blame Angelo Matthews’ malfunctioning helmet. The culture critic will attribute the conflict to the ‘naagin’ dance. But the smug historian will gently gesture from her corner table that since Sri Lankans have Bengali ancestry, it is just a rivalry between brothers and cousins akin to Cain and Abel and the Mahabharata.
None of them would be wrong, but mainly because the point is moot. Once love and war start, who cares how they began? The only thing that matters is what has happened and is happening.
So what has happened and what is happening?
The latest incident
On Monday, 6 November, in match 38 of the ongoing International Cricket Council (ICC)’s men’s one-day cricket world cup, Sri Lanka were put to bat and went on the charge from the get-go.
The Arun Jaitley Stadium in Delhi looked like a great batting wicket and Sri Lanka were clearly trying to put up a good total to put the match out of Bangladesh’s grasp.
The smug historian will gently gesture from her corner table that since Sri Lankans have Bengali ancestry, it is just a rivalry between brothers and cousins akin to Cain and Abel and the Mahabharata.
However, as often happens in such cases, the Lankans kept losing wickets while trying to score quickly. When Sadeera Samarawickrama became Shakib Al Hasan’s second victim, the experienced Sri Lankan all-rounder Angelo Matthews came out to bat.
The match was evenly poised at that juncture. Sri Lanka had scored 135 runs in less than 25 overs, but had lost four wickets. A productive partnership between Samarawickrama and Charith Asalanka (who went on to score a century) had just been broken.
Matthews, who is growing stocky by the day, in the grand tradition of Sri Lankan cricketers, took guard but then realised that the strap of his helmet was broken.
The law and the lag
As he was trying to adjust and readjust his helmet, and asking for a new one, the umpires reportedly warned him about the ‘timed-out’ rule.
Playing Condition 40.1.1 of the ICC Cricket World Cup Playing Conditions states that: “After the fall of a wicket or the retirement of a batter, the incoming batter must, unless time has been called, be ready to receive the ball or for the other batter to be ready to receive the next ball within two minutes of the dismissal or retirement. If this requirement is not met, the incoming batter will be out, timed out.”
‘Playing Conditions’ are rules of cricket, mostly based on Marylebone Cricket Club writing and interpretation.
Matthews continued to fiddle with his helmet and desperately tried to ask his teammates and support staff to arrange a new one.
Since the death of the Australian cricketer Phil Hughes, after being struck in the neck by a ball (which caused a brain haemorrhage) during a Sheffield Shield match at the Sydney Cricket Ground on November 25, 2014, the cricket fraternity has taken a more conservative approach to player’s safety.
However, a new helmet did not arrive in time and Matthews was given ‘timed-out’ as per the ICC rules. He made a last-ditch effort to request Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan to withdraw his appeal.
Also read: Playing kabaddi with the law: Examining the Delhi HC’s decision in K.P. Rao versus Union of India
Playing Condition 31 deals with ‘appeals’.
Playing Condition 31.1 states, “Neither umpire shall give a batter out, even though he may be out under these Playing Conditions, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batter who is out under these Playing Conditions from leaving the wicket without an appeal having been made.”
Playing Condition 31.2 makes it even more unambiguous, “A batter is dismissed if he is either given out by an umpire, on appeal or out under these Playing Conditions and leaves the wicket as in clause 31.1.”
Thus, a batsman is out only under two conditions. If the fielding team appeals for a legitimate dismissal and the umpires uphold their appeal, or if the batsman walks off the field once he has been dismissed.
Without an appeal from the fielding side, no batsman can be given out, although for clear-cut dismissals, say when a batsman’s stumps are rattled, or a catch is cleanly taken, or when a batsman is well short of his crease in a case of run out, the appeal is seen as a mere formality.
Further, Playing Condition 31.8 states, “The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only after obtaining the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls.
“If such consent is given, the umpire concerned shall, if applicable, revoke the decision and recall the batter. The withdrawal of an appeal must be before the instant when the ball comes into play for the next delivery or, if the innings has been completed, the instant when the umpires leave the field.”
The law is clear on this point as well. The umpires have to acquiesce to the request of the captain of the fielding team when they want to withdraw an appeal for the dismissal of a batsman.
Therefore, if Shakib Al Hasan had withdrawn his appeal, Matthews would be ‘not out’.
Decision pending
It was a moment of reckoning for Shakib Al Hasan. Given the recent history between the two sides, he could have made a statesmanlike gesture and withdrawn the appeal for ‘timed out’.
Matthews continued to fiddle with his helmet and desperately tried to ask his teammates and support staff to arrange a new one.
It would create a great deal of goodwill in Sri Lanka for Bangladesh and puncture the budding rivalry between the two cricket-crazy countries.
Also read: Concerns over regulatory vacuum in relation to surrogate advertising
It would also be a noble nod towards cricket safety, acknowledging that no professional cricketer should be put into the field, where injuries and even death are a possibility, without proper gear.
But why would he do that?
Controversies fuel modern sports, and this latest episode in the ‘war minus the shooting’ will only ensure more viewership for Bangladesh–Sri Lanka clashes in future.
Typically, India versus Pakistan matches garner the most eyeballs among all cricketing events, because of the historical rivalry on-field and off-field between the two countries.
It was a moment of reckoning for Shakib Al Hasan. Given the recent history between the two sides, he could have made a statesmanlike gesture and withdrawn the appeal for ‘timed out’.
Since their rivalry started simmering in 2016, Bangladesh versus Sri Lanka matches have also begun to generate more buzz than they did previously.
The episode will also allow entrenched power establishments in the two countries to channelise public opinion in a favourable direction.
Already, the High Court division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has issued a ruling asking the cricket authorities of Bangladesh why they should not file a complaint with the ICC against former Pakistani fast bowler Waqar Younis to scrap his name from its list of international commentators.
Younis had criticised the manner in which Matthews was dismissed, terming it to be against the spirit of cricket.
