Rishabh Pant’s critical dismissal during India’s chase in the Mumbai Test shifted momentum, leading to New Zealand’s victory despite the controversy surrounding the call.
Rishabh Pant’s dismissal during India’s fourth-innings pursuit in the Mumbai Test has emerged as a pivotal moment that could have significantly influenced the outcome of the match. The episode took place when Pant was given out caught bat-pad after a review reversed the on-field umpire’s decision, leading to uncertainty regarding the correctness of the call. Pant had inched India closer to a historic victory with an impressive knock of 64 runs off 57 deliveries, but his departure occurred at a critical juncture when India found itself at 106 for 6, just 41 runs shy of their target. Ultimately, New Zealand triumphed by a margin of 25 runs.
Following the match, India’s captain Rohit Sharma expressed his confusion surrounding the dismissal, stating that it was a complex situation. He noted the challenges involved in discussing such decisions openly. When there is no clear and conclusive evidence, the prevailing understanding is that the on-field umpire’s decision should stand. Rohit criticized the inconsistency in decision-making, advocating for uniformity in the application of rules across all teams.
Compounding matters, New Zealand previously missed an opportunity to review an lbw appeal against Pant earlier in the innings when India was at 59 for 5. In that instance, technology displayed three red lights, indicating a clear dismissal that went unchallenged. Later in the innings, in the 22nd over, Ajaz Patel appealed against Pant twice—once for a potential catch at slip, which was dismissed by the on-field umpire, and the DRS upheld this decision.
On the pivotal ball leading to Pant’s dismissal, Ajaz observed the batter stepping out of his crease and adjusted his delivery. Pant, who had successfully charged down the pitch throughout his innings, found himself forced to play defensively. Consequently, the ball made contact with his bat and then deflected off his front pad into the wicketkeeper’s gloves. The close-in fielders believed there had been an inside edge, but Umpire Richard Illingworth initially ruled it not out. New Zealand’s captain Tom Latham opted to challenge the decision with a review.
Utilizing UltraEdge technology, a spike was visible when the ball made contact near the bat, but the proximity of the bat to the pad created ambiguity regarding the source of the noise. As the replays played on the big screen, New Zealand’s players began to celebrate. Pant, initially unfazed, engaged in a double glove-touch with his batting partner Washington Sundar to signify their last remaining review.
When Paul Reiffel, the third umpire, evaluated the footage, he noted that the spike could have derived from the bat grazing the pad. However, after further meticulous examination that included replaying the moment of impact, he ultimately reached the conclusion that a deflection occurred, just as the ball was passing the bat.
In the post-match conference, Latham articulated New Zealand’s rationale behind the review. He noted that the players heard multiple noises, which influenced their decision to seek reconsideration from the umpires. The players acknowledged the limitations of their visual access to the footage, leaving the outcome dependent on the third umpire’s discretion.
New Zealand had initially placed India under considerable pressure, reducing the chasing side to a precarious 29 for 5 on a noticeably turning pitch, heightening their prospects of clinching victory. However, Rishabh Pant’s spirited batting provided a glimmer of hope for India, leading Rohit to emphasize that Pant’s wicket proved to be an immensely critical turning point. He expressed that Pant had been looking strong at that moment and his dismissal led to a rapid collapse, resulting in India being bowled out shortly thereafter.
In retrospect, the momentum swings created by individual dismissals highlight the fragility of a team’s position in cricket, particularly in a match scenario defined by fluctuating fortunes. The incident involving Pant reflects the ongoing discussions about the review system within the sport, where interpretations of evidence are often subject to debate. In this instance, an incident that seemed straightforward led to an unexpected alteration in the match’s trajectory, underscoring the inherent uncertainties present in cricket.
For fans and analysts alike, such moments serve as a reminder of the intricacies involved in the decision-making processes of on-field officials and the technology meant to assist them. The discussions following this match will likely contribute to an ongoing examination of the application of rules and whether they should be standardized across all teams to maintain consistency and fairness in a high-stakes environment.
Alagappan Muthu serves as a sub-editor for ESPNcricinfo.
What you should read next:
