WPL match saw a brilliant finish with the DC vs MI clash, where Delhi won the match on the last ball. But the last-minute thrill was spoiled by a number of highly controversial run-out calls that brought into question the validity and fairness of third-umpire Gayatri Venugopalan’s verdicts as both teams and observers had doubts about the calls made. These moments of controversy revolved around three big run-out incidents-two during the 18th and 19th overs and the final one concerning Arundhati Reddy in the last ball, the one which sealed Delhi’s win.
Controversy In the 18th Over: Shikha Pandey Jacob
The first among them was the 18th over when Shikha Pandey departed after being run out. From television replays, it appeared that there was no part of her bat behind the line when the stumps were illuminated. However, the third umpire, Venugopalan, made a crucial interpretation of the rules that baffled everyone watching. Under her assumption, the bail had to be completely dislodged from the stumps for the wicket to be considered broken, not the frame where the LED stumps were lit up when the ball hit the stumps. This assertion was challenged by many besides the commentary box, as it contradicted the common understanding of the guidelines for LED stump technology, where the first frame that lights up the stumps generally marks the moment of the wicket being broken.
Radha Yadav’s Disputed Non-Run Out Controversy in 19th Over
In the next controversial incident, the 19th over approached and Radha Yadav became almost run out after hitting the ball to backward point and making a non-existent single. In a dramatic dive, she made it back to the crease despite clear television visual showing her bat to be in the air when the bails were dislodged. The decision evoked a new bout of controversy by the third umpire, who ruled her not out. Most were at a loss as to why: former cricketers included, as it seemed as if the bat was never grounded when the bails were removed which should have been enough to give her out.
Stacy-Ann King, the former West Indian cricketer, voiced her confusion about the decision. “The direct hits that were reviewed, it just showed almost as though she’s on the line while the stumps were broken. So that decision, I think all of us on comms were just thinking that is out. But the umpire knows best. The umpire’s decision was final. She said not out, and it was sort of a costly not-out decision from that situation,” King said.
The Final Run-Out: Arundhati Reddy’s Brace to Win the Game
With the match nearing its climax, it was Arundhati Reddy’s run that created the final twist in this thriller. Reddy ran a brace to secure the win for Delhi, but not before another controversial run-out call.The last ball of the match was bowled and Reddy was nearly run out at the non-striker’s end but was ruled in by the third umpire, with Delhi eventually winning the match narrowly. This final call well and truly added to the confusion and had the Mumbai Indians players, especially captain Harmanpreet Kaur, scratching their heads about the inconsistent application of the rules.
A Puzzling Interpretation of the Rules
At the center of the controversy was third umpire Gayatri Venugopalan’s interpretation of the WPL’s playing conditions. Clause 4.2 in Appendix D, which pertains to the Decision Review System and Third Umpire Protocol, clearly states that when LED stumps are used, the first frame showing the illumination of the stumps indicates that the wicket has been broken. In simpler terms, the lighting of the stumps marks the moment of dismissal, even before the bails are completely dislodged in subsequent frames. This played a crucial role in the decision-making process, yet the umpire’s ruling appeared to conflict with this guideline.
The confusion only grew when former cricketers like Mithali Raj and Lisa Sthalekar expressed their bewilderment over the decisions. Raj, in particular, was taken aback by how Radha Yadav survived, stating that her bat was never in the crease when the bails were removed. “I know for a fact that when you dive and your bat first is in the ground, and then it lifts because you have dived full stretch, that’s not out. But here, you can see that the blade of the bat is up. It’s nowhere touching any part of the ground, that side of the crease. That means to say it’s out. She’s never, the bat was never in the crease,” said Raj.
The Reactions of the Experts
Even seasoned experts, such as Lisa Sthalekar and Mike Hesson, were left confused by the decisions. Sthalekar, expressing her disbelief, posted on her official X handle: “Have I misunderstood the rules? Were those 2 run outs…out?” Meanwhile, former New Zealand coach Mike Hesson shared his own doubts, commenting, “Not sure why the umpire tonight has decided that the zinger bails are not applicable? Once the bails light up, the connection is lost, therefore the wicket is broken! That is in the playing conditions! Have seen more confusion in the last 10 minutes than ever before.”
The Aftermath and Growing Frustration
In the aftermath of the edge-of-the-seat drama, the Mumbai Indians players, led by captain Harmanpreet Kaur, were left pondering how to interpret the odd decisions that went ahead and shaped the very outcome of this contest. The rules were ambiguous; and now third-umpire decisions had a strong whiff of injustice, with the Mumbai camp considering itself to be aggrieved regarding the run-out claims.
There are certainly inconsistencies in applying the rule, the whole display of drama leaving all viewers and fans pickled and disappointed. The entire exciting finish became dull with the shroud of doubt clinging to the run-out decisions, which gave ample reason to many to pour doubts over the interpretation of the LED stumps. Thus, this match shall be remembered for not only the drama acted out on the field but also for the vagueness surrounding the very technology that should have clarified the umpires’ decisions.
Conclusion
It was one match that truly dazzled, with the tensions and spirit bouncing between the Delhi Capitals and the Mumbai Indians. However, altercations over umpiring decisions have built an atmosphere of uncertainty around their very technicalities. Now, with several experts and former cricketers questioning the decisions’ validity, it seems unlikely that those run-out calls will go down any further toward defining interpretations of the regulations in forthcoming writs. Meanwhile, the subject of the third umpire’s verdicts would remain an issue burning in discussions in cricketing circles-it is linked to the proper application of LED stumps technology.
