Rohit Sharma, the captain of the Indian cricket team, has expressed his disbelief and confusion regarding the third umpire’s decision to dismiss Rishabh Pant during the final day of the Mumbai Test. Pant, who had been playing an impressive knock with a 57-ball 64, was given out in what many have termed a controversial call, which took place in the second over after the lunch break on the third and final day of the match.
In the 22nd over of India’s innings, Rishabh Pant came down the pitch to meet a delivery from Ajaz Patel. However, he did not manage to reach the pitch of the ball and tried to defend it by getting his bat ahead. The ball, however, slipped past his bat and grazed his pad, allowing New Zealand’s wicketkeeper, Tom Blundell, to take a straightforward catch. The on-field umpire, Richard Illingworth, initially adjudged Pant to be not out. Unsatisfied with the decision, New Zealand opted to use their review.
As the review proceeded, the UltraEdge technology indicated a slight ‘spike’ on the graph at the precise moment the ball went past Pant’s bat. However, it was suggested that Pant’s bat may have connected with his front pad simultaneously. Pant was seen doing his best to explain this point to the on-field umpires. The third umpire, Paul Reiffel, after having closely examined the replays, opted to overturn the on-field decision. This decision was pivotal, leading to a collapse in India’s batting order and ultimately resulting in a 25-run defeat, completing New Zealand’s 3-0 series sweep.
Addressing the issue in the post-match press conference, Rohit Sharma said, “Regarding that dismissal, I really don’t know what to say. It’s not well-received if we speak up on such matters. But, as per the rule, if there isn’t clear, conclusive evidence, the on-field umpire’s call should stay. That’s the protocol I am aware of. In Pant’s scenario, since the on-field official did not rule him out, I am baffled by how that decision got overturned.”
He further elaborated, “Clearly, the bat was very close to the pad.
. So, I am unsure if it’s appropriate for me to dwell on this. It’s an area for the umpires to introspect. It’s essential to have the same criteria for every team and not alter opinions. However, for us, that dismissal was critical. At that juncture, Rishabh was in great form, appearing poised to guide us through. Tragically, he got out, and we were wrapped up soon afterward.”
The ruling attracted significant commentary on social media as well, with cricketing legend AB de Villiers highlighting the complexities in technological applications in the game. He conveyed his thoughts on X, saying, “Controversy! Once again, there lies a grey area.”
He expressed, “Was Pant’s bat connected to the ball? The dilemma arises when the ball and the bat meet the pad simultaneously; the snickometer captures the noise. But can we be certain it was from the bat hitting the ball? This scenario has always been a concern for me, and now it has manifested at a crucial stage of a significant Test match. Where’s the hotspot technology when you need it?”
He continued, “There must have been uncertainty. Typically, shouldn’t the on-field call be retained unless the third umpire identifies an obvious deviation? I have my reservations. To clarify, I’m impartial, merely advocating for consistent rulings and effective tech utilization.”
Responding to the call in his own press briefing, New Zealand’s captain, Tom Latham, explained that the close fielders detected multiple sounds, prompting the review. “A few of us discerned two sounds, so in that predicament, we took a chance on the review, placing the decision in the umpire’s domain. We don’t have access to the footage that the third umpire relies on, so it is entirely beyond our capacity to control what and how things unfold there. Nonetheless, we went ahead with it, and it favored us, ultimately. Consequently, it’s the umpires’ responsibility; it falls outside our governance.”