A nerve-wracking encounter unfolded at the first T20I game in Visakhapatnam on Thursday where Suryakumar Yadav steered Team India to a sensational two-wicket triumph over the visiting Australian squad. In a match filled with twists and turns, India faced a daunting run chase of 209 runs. The drama reached a crescendo in the final over, where, in a surprising twist of fate, India saw the fall of three crucial wickets – Axar Patel, Ravi Bishnoi, and Arshdeep Singh. The tension was palpable with one run needed off the final delivery.
The crowd held its breath as Rinku Singh, who had mustered a gritty 22 runs, took his stance against bowler Sean Abbott. As Abbott charged in, Rinku fearlessly smacked the ball over long on, the ball sailing into the stands for an apparent six. A cacophony of cheers broke out amongst the Indian fans as they celebrated the moment that seemingly sealed the victory with a flourish.
However, the jubilation was abruptly interrupted by the umpire’s signal – a no ball due to Abbott’s overstep. Amidst the confusion and the continued celebrations, a peculiar situation arose for Rinku Singh. While India’s victory was undeniable, the six runs Rinku had apparently added to his and India’s total would remain uncounted.
The incident brought into spotlight a rarely cited clause from the ICC Men’s T20I Playing Conditions, specifically section 16.5.1, which states, “As soon as a result is reached as defined in clauses 16.1, 16.2 or 16.3.1, the match is at an end. Nothing that happens thereafter, except as in clause 41.17.2 (Penalty runs), shall be regarded as part of it.” This regulation implies that the very instant the no ball was bowled, thereby handing the needed run to India via a penalty, the target was achieved and the match concluded. Thus, any subsequent events, such as Rinku’s mighty hit, were rendered moot in the context of scoring.
For Rinku Singh, the contrasting emotions of his final stroke were palpable. Had the scenario required more than a solitary run for India’s win, his six would have gloriously topped off his performance and contributed to the match’s statistics.
Elaborating on the rules further, the rulebook clarifies: “If a boundary is scored before the batters have completed sufficient runs to win the match, the whole of the boundary allowance shall be credited to the side’s total and, in the case of a hit by the bat, to the striker’s score.” But in the curious case of Rinku, since the no ball was the defining moment that secured India’s victory, his boundary strike was consequently excluded from official recognition.
The climax of the match, overshadowed by the technicalities of cricket law, served as a rare encounter with one of the game’s more obscure regulations. It illustrated that even amidst the raw excitement and unpredictability of 20-over cricket, the game remains firmly grounded in its meticulously crafted rule set.
The episode, no doubt, would be bittersweet for Rinku Singh, whose last-ball heroics vanished within the pages of the rulebook, leaving him with an innings memorable for the spectacle but not the statistics. Nonetheless, the Indian team and supporters reveled in a hard-fought win against a formidable Australian side, setting an electrifying tone for the series ahead.
As the dust settles on this dramatic encounter, India takes away not just a victory but also a stark reminder of the intricacies involved in the sport, where sometimes, the law overshadows the legends.