In a dramatic turn of events at the Mumbai Test, Indian cricket captain Rohit Sharma has raised concerns over a decision made by the third umpire that he believes swung the match away from India. Sharma expressed his bewilderment at how the third umpire’s ruling overturned the on-field decision that initially had declared Indian batsman Rishabh Pant not out. The contentious call came in the second over after Lunch on the third and final day, cutting short Pant’s dynamic innings of 64 runs off 57 balls.
Pant, known for his aggressive batting, was in stellar form on the day, giving India hope of a strong response in their chase against New Zealand. The incident unfolded in the 22nd over when Pant advanced down the pitch to face New Zealand’s Ajaz Patel. Misjudging the delivery, Pant attempted a forward defence, and as the ball narrowly evaded the bat, it ricocheted off his pad. Wicketkeeper Tom Blundell made an easy catch, prompting umpire Richard Illingworth to originally rule Pant not out after a muted appeal from the fielders. However, the New Zealand team opted for a review, thrusting the match into a moment of contention.
The review process, which employed UltraEdge technology, spotted a spike exactly when the ball passed Pant’s bat. This suggested a potential edge, yet Pant’s bat appeared to connect with his pad simultaneously. This dual noise became the epicentre of the debate, with Pant seen gesturing to on-field umpires, pointing out that it was the pad, not the bat, causing the noise. Despite this, third umpire Paul Reiffel overruled the on-field decision, declaring Pant out, a decision that left India’s innings unraveling to a 25-run defeat and ultimately a 0-3 series sweep.
Rohit Sharma’s post-match press conference was filled with undertones of disbelief and frustration regarding the adjudication. “About that dismissal, I honestly, I don’t know,” Sharma began cautiously. “If we say something, it is not accepted well. But if there is no conclusive evidence, it has to stand with the umpire’s on-field decision. That is what I have been told. So, I don’t know how that decision was overturned since the umpire didn’t give him out.
.”
Sharma asserted, “The bat was clearly close to the pad. So, again, I don’t know if it is the right thing for me to talk about. It is something for the umpires to think about. Have the same rules for every team, not keep changing their mind.” He lamented the decision’s impact during a critical juncture when Pant’s innings seemed pivotal to India’s fortunes. “Rishabh was really looking good at that point, and it felt like he would take us through,” Sharma added.
The controversy extended beyond the match itself, stirring reactions across social media. Former South African captain AB de Villiers expressed his views on X, highlighting the complexities when technology enters the game. “Controversy! Little grey area once again,” de Villiers noted. He emphasized the challenge when a ‘snicko’ – sound-detecting technology – captures sound from two possible sources simultaneously. “Fact is there must’ve been doubt. Surely you stay with the on-field call then? Unless the 3rd Ump clearly saw a deviation?” de Villiers queried.
New Zealand captain Tom Latham provided his perspective, stating that the decision to review came after some players perceived two distinct noises. “Yeah, a few of us heard two noises,” Latham acknowledged. “I guess when you review it in that situation, you know you leave it up to the umpire’s hands.” Latham’s comments underscored the uncertainty integral to such close calls, yet he conceded that once referred, it was beyond the players’ control.
The incident has reignited discussions on the effectiveness and consistency of technology in cricket, with calls for more standardized usage. As discussions continue, this ruling stands as a significant moment in the series, highlighting the adage that cricket is often a game of fine margins where decisions can change the course of a match, and perhaps, series outcomes.