Rishabh Pant dismissal stokes a controversy during India-New Zealand third Test

Mumbai: Paul Reiffel could well be the most hated television umpire in India at the moment, but he didn’t do himself any favours by announcing on live television that the spike on the UltraEdge could have come from the bat hitting the pad before adjudging Rishabh Pant out because of a perceived deflection. 

At a time when India were 41 runs from chasing down 147 runs and winning the Test on the back of Pant’s sterling 64, a knock which stood like a beacon among ruins, Ajaz Patel and his mates appealed for a caught-behind call. 

On-field umpire Richard Illingworth remained unmoved, but New Zealand skipper reckoned they may as well use up their last review. “….we obviously heard a couple of noises and decided to take the review,” said Latham in the post-match presser. 

Pant danced down the track and decided against a heave. Instead, he looked to pad away the ball, and it lobbed off his pads to wicketkeeper Tom Blundell. The Kiwis were excited, but Pant was fairly certain he would survive even if they reviewed the call. He knew his bat had struck his pad, or so he kept telling the umpires on the ground.  

Given how close the bat and pad were when the ball was passing the bat, Reiffel, a seasoned TV umpire at that, was in quite the quandary but he rock-and-rolled the video several times over before asking Illingworth to overturn his decision. 

India skipper Rohit Sharma was about as nonplussed as Pant in the wake. “If we say something, it is not accepted well,” he started off when asked about the controversial decision. “But, if there is no conclusive evidence, it has to stand with the umpire's on-field decision, that is what I have been told. So, I don't know how that decision was overturned since the umpire didn't give him out. 

“The bat was clearly close to the pad. Umpires should have the same rules for every team, and not keep changing their mind. That dismissal was very crucial from our point of view. Rishabh was really looking good at that point and it felt like he would take us through. But it was an unfortunate dismissal, got out and then we were bowled out right after that."

It’s hard to be certain when it comes to dismissals such as this one, but there is a reason why ‘inconclusive evidence’ as a failsafe exists.