In a dramatic turn of events during the final day of the Mumbai Test, Indian captain Rohit Sharma voiced his bewilderment regarding the third umpire’s controversial decision that declared Rishabh Pant out. The dismissal came at a crucial juncture in India’s chase and left the cricketing world abuzz with debate and discussions.
Rishabh Pant, who was exhibiting a splendid innings with a stunning 57-ball 64, saw his performance abruptly curtailed under contentious circumstances. The controversy erupted in the 22nd over of India’s chase, as Pant advanced down the wicket to New Zealand spinner Ajaz Patel. Attempting to defend and smother the delivery, Pant missed the ball, which then ballooned after possibly striking his pad. New Zealand’s keeper, Tom Blundell, completed what appeared to be a straightforward catch. On-field umpire Richard Illingworth ruled Pant not out initially, but the New Zealand team opted for a review.
During the review process, the UltraEdge technology detected a spike as the ball neared Pant’s bat. At the same moment, however, Pant’s bat seemed to have made contact with his front pad—a point he was seen emphasizing to the on-field umpires. Nonetheless, third umpire Paul Reiffel, after examining the replays, decided to overturn the initial decision, declaring Pant out. This call was pivotal, as India’s hopes were severely dented, leading to a swift demise as they fell to a 25-run defeat, culminating in a 0-3 series whitewash for the hosts.
In the post-match press conference, an evidently frustrated Rohit Sharma said, “About that dismissal, honestly, I don’t know. If we say something, it is not accepted well. But the protocol is if there isn’t conclusive evidence, then the on-field umpire’s decision should stand. That’s what I’ve been told. So, I’m unsure how this particular decision was overturned when he wasn’t given out initially by the on-field umpire.”
He further elaborated on the close proximity of Pant’s bat to the pad, expressing his reservations about the overturning of the decision. “The bat was clearly close to the pad. Again, I’m unsure if it’s right for me to comment on it.
. It’s really something the umpires need to consider. The same standards should apply across all teams, without frequent changes in interpretation. But that dismissal was crucial from our perspective. Rishabh was in fine touch and it seemed like he could guide us through. It was unfortunate he got out, leading to our swift dismissal shortly after,” Sharma added.
The incident quickly gained traction on social media, with cricket dignitaries weighing in on the debate. Former South African captain AB de Villiers expressed his bewilderment regarding the role of technology in such decisions. “Controversy! A little grey area once again,” de Villiers tweeted. “Did Pant hit it or not? The issue is when the ball passes the bat at the same time the bat strikes the pad, creating a sound that Snicko registers. But can we be sure he hit it? I’ve long been concerned about this, and it arose at a critical moment in a major Test match. Where is Hotspot when you need it?”
He continued his analysis, stressing the necessity of staying with the on-field decision in scenarios shrouded by doubt, unless there is a definite deviation observed by the third umpire. “Fact is there must’ve been doubt. Surely, you stick with the on-field call then? Unless the 3rd Ump clearly saw a deviation? I’m not so sure. And don’t misunderstand me, I have no bias here, just pushing for consistent calls and proper use of tech,” de Villiers added.
Responding to the decision, New Zealand captain Tom Latham revealed that the close-in fielders had detected two distinct sounds and opted for a review. “Yeah a few of us heard two noises so I guess when you review it in that situation you know you leave it up to the umpire’s hands. We can’t necessarily see what the third umpire reviews, so yeah, that’s beyond our control.”
He reiterated that hearing a couple of noises cemented their decision to review, stating, “We obviously heard a couple of noises and decided to take the review and obviously it fell on the right side for us so yeah that’s obviously up to the umpires it’s out of our control.”
The incident has reignited debates about the use and reliability of technology in cricket, underscoring the necessity for consistent standards in the decision-making process.