While the third umpire ruled Hardik Pandya out, noted Indian cricketers R Ashwin, Ravi Shastri, and Wasim Jaffer argued that the New Zealand captain’s gloves had brushed the bails rather than the ball.
In the first ODI against New Zealand, the controversial dismissal of Hardik Pandya sparked an online debate, with many fans claiming the all-rounder was not out.
The majority argued that Tom Latham’s gloves, not the ball, had brushed the bails, even though the third umpire ruled Pandya out.
Pandya attempted to defend the ball that was coming toward him in the 40th over when the incident occurred. The wicketkeeper, who was standing close to the stumps, collected the ball that passed very close to the stumps.
However, while doing so, one of the bails became detached. After careful consideration, the decision was referred to the third umpire, who ruled in favor of the fielding team.
TV replays, on the other hand, gave a different impression because Latham had his gloves very close to the bails and the bails seemed to light up a little bit when they settled in the wicketkeeper’s hands.
The third umpire also checked to see if Latham had picked up the ball behind the stumps, which he did. Since there was no conclusive evidence, Pandya was given the benefit of the doubt.
Before picking up the ball, the TV umpire made sure that Latham’s gloves were behind the stumps, which they were, so it was a legal delivery.
He found that there was no conclusive evidence that the wicketkeeper’s gloves had pulled the bailout.
Being on commentary at the time, Ravi Shastri thought the decision was unfair to the batter.
Oh, it has been distributed! Shastri stated on air that Daryl Mitchell ought to be content. Should really be pleased because, if you look again at where the keeper’s gloves are and where the ball is as it passes the stumps.
It appeared as though it was at least an inch or an inch and a half above the stumps… The ball clearly appears to be above the bail. As it passes through the gloves, you can see that there is no red light before that.
You’re done now. You can see that the gloves are closer to the bails than the ball from that angle,” he continued.
Before picking up the ball, the TV umpire made sure that Latham’s gloves were behind the stumps, which they were, so it was a legal delivery.
He found that there was no conclusive evidence that the wicketkeeper’s gloves had pulled the bailout.
Being on commentary at the time, Ravi Shastri thought the decision was unfair to the batter.
Oh, it has been distributed! Shastri stated on air that Daryl Mitchell ought to be content. Should really be pleased because, if you look again at where the keeper’s gloves are and where the ball is as it passes the stumps.
It appeared as though it was at least an inch or an inch and a half above the stumps… The ball clearly appears to be above the bail.
As it passes through the gloves, you can see that there is no red light before that. You’re done now. You can see that the gloves are closer to the bails than the ball from that angle,” he continued.
Before picking up the ball, the TV umpire made sure that Latham’s gloves were behind the stumps, which they were, so it was a legal delivery.
He found that there was no conclusive evidence that the wicketkeeper’s gloves had pulled the bailout.
Being on commentary at the time, Ravi Shastri thought the decision was unfair to the batter.
Oh, it has been distributed! Shastri stated on air that Daryl Mitchell ought to be content. Should really be pleased because, if you look again at where the keeper’s gloves are and where the ball is as it passes the stumps.
It appeared as though it was at least an inch or an inch and a half above the stumps… The ball clearly appears to be above the bail.
As it passes through the gloves, you can see that there is no red light before that. You’re done now. You can see that the gloves are closer to the bails than the ball from that angle,” he continued.