In a dramatic twist on the third day of the Mumbai Test, Rishabh Pant’s controversial dismissal sparked an intense debate. Playing a crucial knock, Pant was adjudged caught behind, but the third umpire’s decision left fans, experts, and even Pant himself questioning the accuracy of the call. The incident became a heated talking point as experts felt the decision was rushed, without adequate evidence to confirm an edge.
The incident occurred during India’s chase of New Zealand’s target of 147. Pant had stabilized the innings with a solid 64 when, in the 22nd over, New Zealand’s Ajaz Patel delivered a ball that led to an appeal for a catch. The on-field umpire initially ruled Pant not out. However, New Zealand captain Tom Latham opted for a review, and the third umpire, Paul Reiffel, took a closer look.
Third Umpire’s Decision Faces Backlash
During the review, Ultra Edge technology indicated a spike as the ball passed close to Pant’s bat, but there was a complication. Pant’s bat had simultaneously made contact with his pad, which can sometimes cause similar readings on the Snicko meter. In such cases, the benefit of doubt typically goes to the batsman if the evidence is inconclusive. Despite the ambiguity, Reiffel overturned the on-field decision and declared Pant out.
The call immediately came under scrutiny. Veteran players, including Sunil Gavaskar and AB de Villiers, voiced concerns, pointing out that the Snicko meter reading alone was not enough. They argued that more advanced technology, like the Hotspot camera, could have clarified the point of contact. With only Snicko data, it was unclear if the spike came from the ball or Pant’s bat hitting his pad.
Pant’s Reaction and Dressing Room Frustration
Pant’s visible frustration added fuel to the controversy. As he walked back to the pavilion, he reportedly punched the dressing room door in anger. The Indian batsman later engaged in an animated conversation with the on-field umpires, attempting to clarify the decision and insisting there was no contact between the ball and the bat. This reaction has intensified fan criticism, as many feel the decision was unfair and potentially match-altering.
Fans and Experts Demand Better Use of Technology
The incident also led to wider discussions about the use of technology in cricket. Several fans and analysts noted that in high-stakes scenarios, Snicko alone may not provide conclusive proof. The absence of Hotspot data, which can detect contact points more clearly, was cited as a missed opportunity. Cricket enthusiasts took to social media, questioning why Hotspot wasn’t deployed, especially in a close match.
Bigger Implications on Third Umpiring
This controversy has sparked calls to re-evaluate the third umpire’s role and the protocols for overturning on-field decisions. According to cricketing norms, the third umpire generally needs substantial evidence to overturn an on-field call, especially when the original decision was not out.
