On Thursday, Mumbai Indians (MI) and Punjab Kings (PBKS) faced off in match 33 of the 2024 IPL season at the Maharaja Yadavindra Singh Cricket Stadium, with both sides desperate for a win.
PBKS won the toss and chose to put MI in to bat. They managed to strike early, as Kagiso Rabada got rid of Ishan Kishan in the third over. However, thanks to Suryakumar Yadav (78), Rohit Sharma (36) and Tilak Varma (34*), the visitors managed to post 192/7.
Bet here on IPL 2024 and other cricket matches!
Did the umpires make a mistake during the PBKS vs MI IPL 2024 match on Thursday?
During the first innings, there was a controversy regarding an umpiring decision. In the 19th over, Tim David swung at a delivery outside off stump from Sam Curran before the ball went through to keeper Jitesh Sharma. As the ball was not called a wide, the batter chose to review the decision, and third umpire Nitin Menon took a call.
MORE: Five overseas players to watch out for in IPL 2024
As the replay came up on the screen, the official reviewed the footage in slow motion, and many were perplexed to see that his decision was to call a wide, given that the ball passed under David's bat. Was it a mistake, or a correct interpretation of the rules?
According to the IPL's match playing condition for 2024, clause 22 deals with the judging of a delivery as wide or not, stating:
22.1.1 If the bowler bowls a ball, not being a No ball, the umpire shall adjudge it a Wide if, according to the definition in clause 22.1.2
- 22.1.1.1 the ball passes wide of where the striker is standing and which also would have passed wide of the striker standing in a normal batting position.
- 22.1.1.2 the ball passes above the head height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease.
22.1.2 The ball will be considered as passing wide of the striker unless it is sufficiently within reach for him to be able to hit it with the bat by means of a normal cricket stroke.
22.1.3 Umpires are instructed to apply very strict and consistent interpretation in regard to this clause in order to prevent negative bowling wide of the wicket.
22.1.4 Any ball going outside the return crease shall be called wide irrespective of the position of striker.
According to clause 22.1.2, a ball will not be called wide if it is within reach of the batter to hit it by means of a normal cricket stroke. On the review, Menon gave the decision of wide, citing that the ball had passed the guideline but perhaps this was incorrect, as it was still within the reach of the batter.
In their innings, MI chose to challenge three separate wide calls, with all of them going in their favour upon review. They were also proven right on two LBW calls given out, along with one unsuccessful review.
In the second innings, a wide was given off the final ball of the second over, before MI reviewed the decision, with replays showing that batter Sam Curran had in fact nicked it through to the keeper.
Former Australian all-rounder and Sunrisers Hyderabad head coach Tom Moody chipped in on social media, adding to calls for specialist third umpires to deal with the issue of several questionable calls.
It’s time we considered having specialist 3rd umpires, too many questionable decisions being made.
— Tom Moody (@TomMoodyCricket) April 18, 2024
Some umpires are better suited on field, the 3rd umpire requires experience and a certain skill set. #IPL
If you purchase a product or register for an account through one of the links on our site, we may receive compensation. Learn more >