IPL 2024: From Kohli's No-Ball to Dubious Wide Calls – Umpiring Under Scrutiny

IPL 2024 | From no-balls to wides, let's delve into instances where umpiring decisions have come under scrutiny.

IPL 2024: Let's delve into the instances where umpiring decisions have come under scrutiny this season.

Image: BCCI/Altered by The Quint

The 2024 Indian Premier League (IPL) concluded with the Kolkata Knight Riders claiming the title after an 8-wicket victory over the Sunrisers Hyderabad in the final. The 17th edition of the tournament provided a thrilling mix of high-octane drama, exhilarating nail-biters, and a few heart-wrenching defeats. Amidst the captivating action, the tournament also saw some questionable umpiring decisions, with players frequently engaging with umpires and challenging calls ranging from overlooked wides to contentious no-balls.

Let's delve into these instances where umpiring decisions came under scrutiny and criticism:

Rahmanullah Gurbaz's LBW Dismissal (KKR vs SRH, Final)

The most recent controversy in the IPL 2024 final between KKR and SRH arose when KKR opener Rahmanullah Gurbaz was adjudged LBW by the third umpire despite the availability of technologies such as Hawk-Eye and Ultra Edge.

The incident occurred when Gurbaz attempted to sweep a fuller delivery from Shahbaz Ahmed. The on-field umpire initially gave him out, prompting Gurbaz to immediately opt for a review. Subsequently, the umpires conferred with SRH captain Pat Cummins to address the situation.

Image: X

During the review process, as broadcasted on television, the third umpire solely relied on video replays, making a decision based on these visuals without the assistance of Hawk-Eye and Ultra Edge technology. This reliance on video evidence alone raised questions about the accuracy and fairness of the decision-making process. Notably, there was no official clarification regarding the unavailability of these technologies.

Dinesh Karthik's LBW Dismissal (RCB vs RR, Eliminator)

Another contentious umpiring decision in IPL 2024 sparked controversy during the Eliminator match between Rajasthan Royals and Royal Challengers Bangalore. In the 15th over of RCB's innings, Dinesh Karthik was trapped plumb in front by Avesh Khan. Karthik sent the decision upstairs.

The batter had attempted a shot across the line before the ball struck his pad. UltraEdge showed a significant spike, indicating potential contact, but it was challenging to determine whether the sound was from the bat hitting the pad or the inside edge.

Image: Screengrab

Due to the proximity of the ball to the bat and the potential for deviation, the third umpire concluded that the bat was indeed involved.

This decision led to RR mentor Kumar Sangakkara seeking further clarification from the fourth umpire. The verdict also drew the attention of cricket experts, with commentator Ravi Shastri expressing his dissatisfaction, stating that the decision was completely unfair to the Rajasthan Royals.

Sanju Samson’s Catch  - (RR vs DC, Match 56)

Umpiring came under heavy scrutiny during the 56th match between RR and DC over Shai Hope's catch to dismiss Sanju Samson - in the 16th over of RR's innings, Samson hit a low shot down the ground. Shai Hope, positioned at the long-on boundary, caught the ball at chest height, but his feet were perilously close to the boundary line. It appeared as if Hope's shoes might have brushed the cushions.

Hope claimed the catch, but the on-field umpire decided to refer the decision to the third umpire, who ultimately ruled in favour of DC. The decision left Samson visibly upset, leading to a heated argument with the on-field umpires. This confrontation resulted in Samson being fined 30% of his match fees.

Ayush Badoni’s Run-Out (MI vs LSG, Match 48)

In the 48th match of the tournament between Mumbai Indians and Lucknow Super Giants, umpiring once again came under heavy criticism. The incident unfolded in the 19th over, with LSG requiring 13 runs from 12 balls. Hardik Pandya delivered a short and wide ball outside off stump. Ayush Badoni attempted to cut it and swiftly went for a run but Ishan Kishan swiftly removed the bails to dismiss Badoni when he attempted for the second run, initially seeming to miss the stumps on his first try but succeeding on the second attempt.

Image: BCCI

At first, it appeared that Badoni had made it to the crease before the bails were dislodged. However, after reviewing the replays, the third umpire, KN Ananthapadmanabhan, determined that Badoni had failed to ground his bat at any point. Despite being well within the crease, his bat was airborne, resulting in his dismissal. 

The decision didn't go down well with LSG coach Justin Langer and captain KL Rahul. Former Indian cricketer Irfan Pathan also expressed his dissatisfaction with the umpire's call. “What a terrible decision by third umpire of run out,” wrote Pathan on “X”.

Noor Ahmad's Catch (DC vs GT, Match 40)

DC vs GT: Noor Ahmed taking Prithvi Shaw's catch.

Image: Screengrab/X

A controversy also erupted during the 40th match between Delhi Capitals and Gujarat Titans. In the fourth over of the game, DC batter Prithvi Shaw pulled a short ball towards midwicket off Sandeep Warrier, where Noor Ahmad executed a brilliant diving catch.

However, doubts arose regarding the legitimacy of the catch, compelling the on-field umpires to refer it to the third umpire for verification. After reviewing multiple angles, the catch was deemed legitimate, resulting in Shaw being dismissed for 11 off 7 balls.

Despite numerous replays, some fans remained unconvinced about the catch's legitimacy, leading to widespread outrage on social media. Commenting on the game, Parthiv Patel was also of the opinion that the ball had touched the ground.

Wide Ball by Yash Thakur (CSK vs LSG, Match 39)

During the 39th match of the tournament between Chennai Super Kings (CSK) and Lucknow Super Giants (LSG), an incident unfolded in the 18th over. LSG's fast bowler, Yash Thakur geared up to deliver the first ball of the over to Shivam Dube. Attempting a wide yorker, Thakur's delivery veered outside the tram line, prompting the umpire to signal a wide.

The wide ball which infuriated KL Rahul.

(Photo: X)

This decision didn't sit well with LSG's wicket keeper and captain, KL Rahul, who visibly expressed his discontent and opted to review the call. A heated exchange ensued between Rahul and the umpire, with both parties attempting to justify their perspectives. Not stopping there, Rahul exchanged words with Dube before returning to his position.

Ultimately, the on-field decision stood as the TV umpire confirmed that the ball had marginally breached the wide line. Thus, the wide call remained unchanged.

No-Ball Controversy ft. Virat Kohli (RCB vs KKR, Match 36)

Perhaps the most talked-about umpiring decision of IPL 2024 was Virat Kohli’s dismissal against Kolkata Knight Riders in the 36th match of the league.

In the third over of the chase, Kohli was deemed caught and bowled by Harshit Rana to what seemed like a waist-high full-toss, prompting expectations of a no-ball call. Kohli challenged the decision immediately, but the newly-incorporated ball tracking system indicated that the ball had dipped sufficiently and would have been below waist height had Kohli been in his usual batting stance.

As per the hawk-eye technology, Kohli's position outside the crease played a crucial role in the decision.

Image: X/StarSports

Kohli's position outside the crease played a crucial role in the decision. Although the ball was above waist height at the point of impact, the trajectory analysis suggested that had Kohli stayed within his crease, it wouldn't have surpassed waist height.

However, Kohli was agitated by the decision, expressing his frustration with the umpire, resulting in a 50 per cent fine on his match fees.

Multiple Questionable Calls (MI vs PBKS, Match 33)

In the 33rd match of the league between Punjab Kings and Mumbai Indians, a series of contentious umpiring decisions stirred up the game's dynamics.

During the 15th over of the first innings, PBKS pacer Arshdeep Singh delivered a wide yorker to Suryakumar Yadav, who remained positioned on the leg side and couldn't reach the ball. Surprisingly, the umpire refrained from calling it a wide.

During PBKS vs MI, Pollard and Tim David were observed reviewing the replay and signaling to their batter for a review,

Image: X

Amidst this, members of the MI camp – Kieron Pollard and Tim David – were observed reviewing the replay and signaling to their batter for a review and were each fined 20 percent of their respective match fees for their involvement. Subsequently, upon review, the delivery was rightfully deemed wide. However, PBKS captain Sam Curran was visibly furious at this turn of events.

In another instance during the same game, in the 19th over, Sam Curran bowled a delivery outside off to which Tim David stretched. Initially not considered a wide, the batter decided to challenge the decision. Upon review, replays indicated that the ball had passed under David's bat, with the third umpire Nitin Menon declaring it a wide. However, it's worth noting that according to IPL rules, a delivery cannot be called wide if it's within the batter's reach.

Wriddhiman Saha's LBW (GT vs PBKS, Match 17)

In the 17th match of the tournament between Gujarat Titans and Punjab Kings, umpire Vineet Kulkarni made a swift decision to signal Wriddhiman Saha out before the DRS view was consulted which drew him flak. 

During the 27th game of IPL 2024, between GT and PBKS, the umpire made a decision to signal Wriddhiman Saha out before the DRS view was consulted which drew him flak.

Image: BCCI

On the first delivery of the second over, Arshdeep delivered a good length ball that swung into the right-hander, narrowly missing the inside edge and striking Saha's back pad. Umpire Kulkarni wasted no time in raising his finger, resulting in Saha to opt for a review.

Initially, it appeared that the ball might be sailing over the stumps due to its trajectory. However, upon closer inspection, it became evident that although the ball pitched and impacted in line, it ultimately missed the leg stump due to its height.