Shakib Al Hasan tells players to leave field in angry scenes

Fuming Shakib Al Hasan felt two bouncers were bowled in the final over which were both over shoulder height, neither of which were given. It led to a Bangladeshi sub fielder confronting umpires and Sri Lankan players before Shakib called off his players.


delan82's picture
Member since:
18 October 2009
Last activity:
1 day 9 hours

I thought the umpires erred on not calling the 2nd short ball a wide even if there was a run out that occurred also but this was shocking behaviour by the Bangladeshi captain and the substitutes running on the field.

I could understand the batsman in the middle Mahmudullah querying it with umpires but not the others.

And I see Bangladeshi fans trying to justify this by comparing it to Ranatunga in Adelaide in 99 but there were completely different circumstances and scenarios. If anything this was closer to Gavaskar trying to his colleague off at MCG after being given out LBW to Lillee.

Great game in end. But cricket marred by this then the appalling behaviour on field after followed by the damage to dressing room. Shocking.

I didn't see it necessary for Sri Lankan players to be doing any versions of that dance either. Sure Mushfiqur did it last game but we know what an over the top imbecile he can be at times.

Anonymous1's picture

With all due respect, I can not agree with delan82

I think the head umpire made the mistake by not informing Isuru Udana of bowling a short ball after he has delivered the 1st ball. That allowed Udana to bowl the second ball, a short ball too. Udana is not at fault.

Mahamdulla, seeing two short balls in the same over, correctly complained to the umpire that the second ball should be called a " No Ball". In a T20, a bowler is allowed to bowl ONLY ONE BOUNCER per over.( Please see the ICC rules, given below, for bouncers).

But, the umpire did not admit his mistake. , This angered the Balgladesh team. I see no reason why they should not. They thought that the Sri Lankan umpire was favoring the Sri Lankan team.
ICC should take action against the umpire for his mistake.

In addition, our so-called acclaimed commentator Abeysinghe was saying that he did not understand why Mamadulla was complaining. To my surprise none of the other commentators analysed the situation correctly.

ICC Rules/Bouncers

During the 1970s to 1980s, bouncers were used as part of a team's intimidatory tactics, especially by the West Indies team. In 1991, the International Cricket Council (ICC) introduced a "one bouncer per batsman per over" rule in an attempt to discourage use of intimidation. However, the ruling was not well received by players and umpires alike, with English umpire Dickie Bird describing it as "farcical" as he felt that calling intimidatory tactics should be left to the umpire.[1] The ICC changed it to two bouncers per over in 1994, with a two-run no-ball penalty (rather than one-run no-ball) if the bowler exceeded two bouncers an over.[2] One Day International cricket allowed one bouncer per over in 2001 (and a one-run no-ball in case a bowler exceeded the limit).[3]

On 29 October 2012 the ICC increased the number of bouncers that could be bowled during a One Day International to two.[4] The number of bouncers per over allowed in T20s was kept to one.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Peter Donalds's picture

Umpire correct or not !!! Please correct me if I am wrong. Are Bangladeshis, thugs or cricketers ??? This cricket team must be ban under immediate effect. They are reflecting there Taliban mentality. Do we need international thugs as cricketers??

delan82's picture
Member since:
18 October 2009
Last activity:
1 day 9 hours

Anonymous1 you are correct umpires error needs to be addressed by ICC but that is not an excuse for the scenes that followed by players.
The umpire actually called no-ball then retracted it after the referral for the run out went.

Mahmudallah complaining was not an issue he was batsman out there in's the others running on and from the boundary line that should have been punished.

Btw not sure how what I said is differing that much in what you said...unless you think it was okay for the substitutes to run on and remonstrate and the captain to do so from sidelines and threaten to forfeit, which doesn't seem as you are saying that so i'm a bit confused.

ALso Shame SLC cancelled/postponed the umpiring exams....but either way that kind of umpiring error not an excuse for what followed after on field and also damage in dressing room after

Anonymous1's picture

delan82, thank you very much for your response. I have read your comments on many other issues and you seem to be a very smart person. My disagreement with you on this issue is, ONLY on the technical aspect as explained below, not on how Bangladesh team behaved.

At the beginning of your comment, you mentioned that the second short ball would have been called a "WIDE" after the first ball was a bouncer too. That is where I did not agree with you, since that ball should be called a "NO BALL" according to the ICC rule, 1 bouncer per over in a T20. As we all know, a no ball carries a "FREE HIT" which is a tremendous advantage for the batting side. Bangladesh team was angry, quite correctly, for being denied that advantage by two Sri Lankan umpires after one umpire calling the no ball.
Having said that, I do not legitimate or condone Bangladesh team's behavior. They should have shown their displeasure in a much more professional way. I feel that ALL TEAMS should undergo a CONFLICT RESOLUTION training program prepared by the ICC. I recall Lasith Malinga , in an interview, saying that Cricket is not a gentlemen's game since the players do not wear tie and coat in the middle. That type of mind set is not what the fans want from the players.

In addition, I would like to point out that Isuru Udana missed a golden opportunity to take the match on a trouble-free path, may be even winning it. I am sure Udana, as an experienced player, realized that his first ball was a bouncer which was not called by Umpire Wimalasiri. Having realized it, Udana could have decided not to bowl anymore bouncers, which was the right thing to do. Recently, Rumesh Ratnayaka mentioned that our players are encouraged to take SAMRT DECISIONS in the middle. I feel that Udana let Ratnayaka down badly.

If Udana bowled a wicket to wicket second ball,
1) Umpire Wimalasiri's mistake would not have mattered.
2) Would have avoided all the chaos.
3) Would have increased the probability of dismissing Mustafizur and let Rubel Hussain face the 3rd ball instead of Mahamadulla.
4) Udana would be praised for playing the game in the right spirit and will have very pleasant memories to carry right thru his life.

Was Udana sneaky and got the results for being so?

Your comments please!

delan82's picture
Member since:
18 October 2009
Last activity:
1 day 9 hours

Anonymous1 thanks. Yes you are right and i'm not confused anymore. Thanks. Should be no-ball not wide as was within batsman's reach still plus the other reasons you said.

As for Udana, i'm not sure what he was thinking but wasn't the ball before they reviewed a caught behind which was a bad review. Maybe he was thinking he was going to get him same way and not of anything else. Not sure if umpire got distracted from the 1 bouncer signal/warning because of this review too although should be an excuse.
Also risky if he did get bat on it as could have flown anywhere including over the keeper for runs.
He was probably going with theory last ball was a dot i'll do it again. Good bowlers might be able to get in a good short delivery to tail and keep it below shoulder height. Not sure I would rank Udana as that but that's my personal opinion especially at his pace. If that was his intention then maybe he had to come around the wicket and go at body that way.

I agree keeping Mustafizur on strike would have been a better outcome for SL. Perhaps could have been more awareness from SL fielders that they were going to try and pinch a run from anywhere not matter what and go for Mahamudullah if possible. Be interesting to see how far the batsman was backing up too.

I see how your scenarios may have avoided all the commotions.
I wonder if things would have carried on so bad if the umpire never moved his hand to call no-ball in the first instance. Would have still be incorrect call by him and no doubt questioned by Mahmudallah who was out there and probably others post game a la post 2015 WC semi against India where their chairman said umpires and BCCI fixed match. But by signalling then changing mind that inflamed things. This is also where common sense from icc (if they had any) would help cos if they allowed the 3rd or 4th ump or match ref could have communicated to onfield ones and asked what about the no-ball signal...

Its shame the DRS doesn't allow players to review any decision called and not just dismissals. Also shame the previous caught behind review 3rd umpire amongst all checks can say over shoulder that is the 1 for the over....but all this would be asking for too much of the icc.

I was wondering if Thisara would go with Udana or Pradeep (who has been expensive all tournament) or spin of Aponso or Gunathilaka (to make batsman make the pace) or even take it upon himself. Spinners seem to be doing well in T20 even in power plays and in this match so I might have gone with one of them. Perhaps he thought Udana would use his change of pace deliveries. Not sure if that was a smart decision others may differ in opinion. End of the day Udana learnt hard way hopefully he will remember if circumstances/scenario present again but SL need to look at their attack and who is going to bowl at the death and that one has to go to selectors. This game though I think was lost with the bat...4 wickets in PP, 5/41 at one stage and not enough runs.

So agree with you about no-ball instead of what I wrote as wide. Others debatable and subjective.

Anonymous1's picture


Your excellent comment proved me right. You are very smart. Your insights of this issue is fantastic. You should work for SLC or ICC.

I totally agree with you that umpire Wimalasiri would have been alerted by some official about not calling the first ball a bouncer. I think leg umpire Palliyaguruge would have done that. He called the second ball a no ball. For him to that, he knew that the first ball was a bouncer. Seeing that the first ball was a bouncer and umpire Wimalasiri not calling it, umpire Palliyaguruge would have requested umpire Wimalasiri to call it a bouncer. If it was done, sanity would have prevailed. Maybe we would have won. I feel Umpire Palliyaguruge erred.

Karthik won the Hero of the match. Sunder won Man of the series. And delan 82 won the Best Analysis of a issue of the series.

Keep up the good work and take care!

delan82's picture
Member since:
18 October 2009
Last activity:
1 day 9 hours

LOL I'm just an arm chair critic with an opinion to share when I have time

Post new comment

All anonymous comments are moderated.
  • Avoid abusive remarks and personal attacks.
  • Avoid posting unrelated links.
  • Avoid vulgar or obscene language.
Already a member? Log-in now. Not a member? Sign up for a new account.
This step helps us prevent automated submissions from spammers.
6 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.