Team India beat Japan by two runs in a nail-biting contest during the one-off T20I. The historic game took place at the Sano International Cricket Ground. It was the first time that the two teams faced off in a cricket match. While it was a special match, it had its fair share of controversy as well.
Batting first, Shreyas Iyer and Co. found it tough to score on a turner after persistent rain. The game was reduced to five overs per side, and the visitors managed to make 32/4. However, the bowlers held their nerves as India defended the total successfully, restricting Japan to 30/3 in the end.
The controversial moment came in the final over of the chase. Japan needed eight runs off six balls to win. Axar Patel had the ball in hand. On the third ball, he bowled a delivery down the leg side. Wicketkeeper-batter Alexander Shirai-Patmore, who is left-handed, went for the reverse sweep. The delivery was declared a wide by umpire Chris Thurgate, who was at the striker’s end.
Axar, Sanju Samson, and skipper Shreyas were visibly upset with the decision. In fact, Shreyas even had a chat with Chris Brown, the square leg umpire. Both umpires got into a discussion and consulted each other. Initially, the on-field decision stood, and the delivery remained a wide.
India forced the umpire to reverse the decision
With just six runs needed off four balls, it was a crucial juncture in the game for India. As the batter attempted a reverse sweep and it was called a wide, Axar Patel was unhappy and voiced his displeasure to umpire Chris Thurgate.
Skipper Shreyas Iyer also walked up to leg umpire Chris Brown and asked him to intervene. As a result, the two umpires once again had a chat among themselves, and the decision was eventually overturned. The Men in Blue thus forced the umpires to reverse the decision, following which it was counted as a legal delivery.
It clearly made a huge difference, as the victory margin in the end was just two runs. Had the decision not been reversed, the game could have had a different result, for all we know. That said, it left several fans surprised as to how the umpire could change an on-field decision, given there was no provision for DRS or a third umpire.
What does the law say?
A batter loses their leg-side wide privilege under ICC playing conditions if they swap hands or feet. However, the ruling depends on whether the ball passes sufficiently within reach for a normal stroke for a standard reverse sweep, in which the batter simply adjusts mid-delivery to reach a ball (Clause 22.1.2). India contended that the wide judgement was invalid because Shirai-Patmore’s positional change put the ball within reach.
Additionally, a delivery must pass wide of both the striker’s current position and where they would stand in a typical batting position in order to pass the dual-condition test in the playing conditions. The batter modifies their physical posture and brings the ball within suitable reach for a cricket stroke by attempting a reversed shot. The delivery does not fulfil the technical definition of a wide under Clause 22.1.2 because it meets the requirement of being reachable in relation to the batter’s altered posture.
However, the actual controversy arose from the way the regulation was applied rather than the rule itself. The on-field umpires revised their earlier ruling only through mid-pitch conversation due to the absence of DRS or a third umpire throughout the match after significant protests from the Indian players, which sparked discussion about how on-field calls are handled without the use of technology.
Edited by Rishab Vm