The clash between the Delhi Capitals (DC) and the Mumbai Indians (MI) ended in a dramatic last-ball victory for DC, but the game was overshadowed by contentious run-out decisions made by third umpire Gayatri Venugopalan. Three crucial run-outs—Shikha Pandey in the 18th over, Radha Yadav in the 19th, and Arundhati Reddy on the final ball—sparked controversy, leaving MI players and fans frustrated.
In the cases of Pandey and Reddy, replays suggested that no part of their bats was behind the crease when the stumps were illuminated. However, Venugopalan ruled in their favor, applying the principle that the wicket is only broken when the bails are completely dislodged, rather than when the LED stumps light up.
Yadav’s dismissal was even more contentious. She attempted a quick single, but replays indicated that her bat was in the air when the bails were dislodged. Despite this, she was given not out, a decision that became even more significant when she hit a six off the very next ball, reducing the equation to 10 runs off the last over.
Confusion Over Playing Conditions
MI captain Harmanpreet Kaur expressed her confusion regarding the decision that went in Pandey’s favor and approached the on-field umpires for clarification. However, she did not visibly contest the subsequent two run-out calls.
According to Clause 4.2 in Appendix D of the WPL Playing Conditions, “where LED Wickets are used, the moment at which the wicket has been put down shall be deemed to be the first frame in which the LED lights are illuminated.” Clause 29.1 further states that a wicket is considered broken when at least one bail is completely removed from the stumps.
Based on these regulations, the first frame showing the LED lights turning on should be the defining moment. Since the bails were fully dislodged in subsequent frames, Pandey and Reddy should have been deemed out.
Expert Reactions and Criticism
The controversial decisions drew strong reactions from former players and analysts. Stacy-Ann King and Mithali Raj were among those questioning the rulings.
King remarked, “The direct hits showed she was on the line when the stumps were broken. We all thought that was out, but the umpire’s decision was final. That was a costly not-out call, followed by Yadav’s escape. These decisions could have changed the game much earlier.”
Raj was particularly perplexed by Yadav’s survival, stating, “If you dive and your bat first touches the ground before lifting, that’s not out. But in this case, her bat never touched the ground inside the crease. That should have been out.”
Lisa Sthalekar and Mike Hesson also voiced their concerns. Sthalekar posted on X, “Have I misunderstood the rules? Were those two run-outs not out?” Hesson added, “Why has the umpire tonight ignored the zinger bails? Once the bails light up, the connection is lost, meaning the wicket is broken! That’s in the playing conditions! More confusion in 10 minutes than ever before.”
The Aftermath
While DC celebrated their thrilling win, MI was left wondering what could have been had the umpiring decisions gone differently. The match reignited the debate over third umpire interpretations and the role of technology in officiating, raising questions about consistency and transparency in crucial moments of the game.
