Either way, Mathews was drawing a line between what constituted a fair "timed out" dismissal, and what constituted time taken out of the game to replace faulty equipment.

However, the playing conditions, as it stands, does not make allowances for equipment malfunction - it only stipulates that the new batter be ready to receive the ball within two minutes of the previous dismissal, which, in a strict interpretation of the rule, Mathews was not.

However, umpires frequently allow equipment to be changed mid-over if required - helmets and bats in particular. If the strap had broken one ball into Mathews' innings, for example, there likely would have been no issues with his calling for a replacement and his taking some time picking one.

"We talk about safety of the players, and you guys tell me if it's right for me to take my guard without my helmet on," Mathews said. "That's where the umpires could have done a bigger job at the time because they could have gone back and checked. A wicketkeeper for a spinner they don't let keep without his helmet. So how can I take my guard without my helmet? It's completely an equipment malfunction.

"You need to have your common sense in terms of using technology. It was clearly malfunction - it [the strap] just came off. I didn't need to pull it and break it"

"What's the point not checking at that time and then checking it afterwards?" Mathews continued. "You need to have your common sense in terms of using technology. It was clearly malfunction - it [the strap] just came off. I didn't need to pull it and break it."

Fourth umpire Holdstock had also suggested at the halfway point of the match that it was the batter's responsibility to have "all your equipment in place".

Mathews scoffed at this idea.

"That's quite laughable. It is our responsibility, yes - if I went out to bat against a fast bowler, it's my responsibility obviously," he said. "But something coming off, do you really think I would know if it's going to come off? I don't understand the logic."