English
Gujarati
Hindi
Punjabi
Tamil
India One News
After an on-field decision went against his team on Friday, Delhi Capitals captain Rishabh Pant almost persuaded his teammates to organise a walkout in the 34th match of the ongoing Indian Premier League (IPL). The event occurred during Delhi’s match against Rajasthan Royals’ final over.
Pant signalled his batsmen to leave the field after on-field umpire Nitin Menon declined to rule a waist-high delivery from Obed McCoy a no-ball in a disputed decision.
Pant criticized for his behaviour
Pant’s reaction, on the other hand, has been met with disapproval from the cricketing world, with some pundits labelling the wicketkeeper-actions batters as unacceptable.
Kevin Pietersen, a former England captain, was among those who chastised Pant for his antics. DC assistant coach Pravin Amre was also scolded by Pietersen for entering the field to stop the action. After the umpires declined to designate the delivery a no-ball, Amre onto the field to protest with them.
“This is cricket, not football. You cannot be doing that in the gentlemen’s game,” Pietersen, who is a part of Star Sports’ commentary panel, said during the incident.
“Rishabh Pant calling batters back and coach entering the field to stop the play was unacceptable. I don’t know who they think they are but that was a huge huge mistake, I just don’t understand the coach running into the field of play. He is a senior member. That is unacceptable. I hope that we never ever ever see it again,” Pietersen said in the post-match show on Star Sports.
In the meantime, the Delhi Capitals accepted the on-field decision and the game went on. Rajasthan won by three runs after McCoy bowled three more deliveries. McCoy had given up three straight sixes prior to the game’s brief pause, and he was under great pressure to deliver in the final over. Rajasthan won by 15 runs and moved to the top of the points table.
Pant was asked about the ugly circumstances that occurred in Delhi’s innings last over after the game. The 24-year-old admitted to making a mistake but argued that the judgement of the on-field umpire was wrong and that the third umpire should have intervened. The umpiring, according to Pant, might have been better.
