The Chennai Super Kings vs Sunrisers Hyderabad IPL 2020 match saw a dramatic incident in the 19th over of the SRH chase, where referee Paul Reiffel started stretching his arms for a wide call and then decided not to even as MS Dhoni and Shardul Thakur started. protesting the call.
ORANGE CAP IPL 2020 | IPL CAP 2020 PURPLE
SRH needed 25 of 11 when Thakur threw a wide shot at Rashid Khan, who tried to stretch to no avail. When Reiffel turned to call for a wide, Dhoni and Thakur signaled perhaps indicating that the batter had moved, after which Reiffel decided not to call him a wide.
FULL COVERAGE IPL 2020 | 2020 IPL CALENDAR | TABLE OF POINTS IPL 2020
When Reiffel changed his mind, SRH captain David Warner wore a puzzled expression from the excavation. CSK won the game by 20 runs, defending their score of 167 of 6.
SEE | The Laws of Cricket Challenge, Episode 11 with KKR Captain Dinesh Karthik
Look here:
The FairPlay Award is for #CSK pic.twitter.com/ZiRUIaMCiu
– ✨💫 (@Kourageous__) October 13, 2020
It should be noted that under the law there was nothing wrong with what Reiffel did, as a referee is allowed to change his decision, as long as he does so promptly.
Section 2.12 of the IPL match play condition reads:
“Referee’s decision: An arbitrator may alter any decision as long as such alteration is made promptly. Apart from this, the decision of a referee, once made, is final. “
Soon after, Rashid was trapped in the depths by Deepak Chahar. Interestingly, he was also hit on the wicket on the same ball that his foot hit the stumps.
WATCH:
Rashid Khan’s Wicket (Hit Wicket + caught) 🏏#CSKvsSRH #csk #RashidKhan #SRH #dhoni #referee # IPL2020 pic.twitter.com/0SDaRUP6eT
– Ryan De Sa (@ ryandesa_07) October 13, 2020
It’s irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, but the firing was marked as a hit, when ideally it should have been caught.
Section 33.5 (Caught to take priority) of the IPL match conditions of play reads: “If the criteria of clause 33.1 are met and the forward is not off the ball, then he is out of the trap, despite that a decision against either batter by another method of expulsion would be justified. “
.
