Opinion Why it is unfair to equate Angelo Mathews’ timed-out dismissal with a Mankad

I rolled my eyes and did not care much. Mathews was timed out, and as per the tournament’s playing conditions, it seemed to be a fair dismissal. Of course, the reputation of Shakib Al Hasan, Bangladesh’s mercurial skipper, made it easy for pundits to pile on, criticising him for his “underhanded” tactics. However, I am not one to lambast a cricketer for playing within the rules. The batter was late (whatever the reason) and the opposing captain rightfully asked for a review. Just because no one has ever done it before does not make it “wrong”.

Where a line needs to be drawn, however, is when comparing the incident to the Mankad. As with a timed out, a run out on the non-striker’s end is a legitimate mode of dismissal and should never be a subject of debate. Yet, it is somewhat different from what happened in Mathews’ case — and that difference needs to be acknowledged.

From video footage that was later released, Angelo Mathews was at the crease by around 1 minute 50 seconds, 10 seconds before he ran out of time. Whether he was “ready to receive the next ball” as the timed-out rule stipulates, is a different question. But he was there, and the play would have gone on as usual if his helmet strap had not broken when he went to tighten it. Once that happened, Mathews went to get another helmet and that is when the appeal was made.

Now, the rules do not take into account a last-minute equipment malfunction. Indeed, it is not uncommon for players to time-waste with the help of the wrong equipment (as when Ishant Sharma walked out to bat with two right-handed gloves in 2008). Yet, even to someone who is all about the rules, Angelo’s timed-out dismissal seemed somewhat unfair to him. There was no way he was actually trying to waste time — at that moment in the game, he did not need to. And there are better ways to do that anyway.

This is where Angelo’s dismissal is fundamentally different to a Mankad. During a Mankad, the non-striker is out of the crease and by doing so, intentionally or otherwise, she gains an advantage. The advantage might be minuscule, only a couple of centimetres sometimes, but cricket is often won in the margins. If a no-ball can be given for overstepping by a centimetre, there is no reason for giving the non-striker any similar advantage.

Angelo was dismissed not while trying to take any undue advantage but because he did not want to play with a faulty helmet. For a game that has become increasingly cognisant of the risks that head injuries pose, that is a fair position to take, even if he was only facing a spinner. Perhaps Angelo could have communicated better with the umpires, who did not seem to know that his helmet strap had broken. But beyond that, he did not seem to have done much wrong.

This is not to say that Shakib should not have appealed, or withdrawn his appeal. He played by the rules and should be respected for that. But this still does not justify equating the timed-out dismissal with a Mankad. To put it a different way: Mankad is (should be) a part of the game, and Angelo’s timed out is a part of the rules.

There are different ways of playing cricket. As the game has become increasingly professional, so-called “gentlemanly conduct” has rightly taken a back seat. Both the increasing acceptance of the Mankad and yesterday’s timed-out dismissal are products of this professional spirit, without unnecessary hangups about propriety. The former, however, seems to be a far fairer outcome than what happened with Angelo yesterday.

arjun.sengupta@expressindia.com