Home
Delhi Capitals (DC) face a crucial match against Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) on May 12 at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium, but they'll be without their skipper Rishabh Pant. The BCCI suspended Pant for one match due to a slow over-rate offense during their previous game against Rajasthan Royals (RR). This is Pant's third such offense this season, resulting in a one-game suspension. In Pant's absence, Axar Patel will be leading DC's pack in the IPL 2024 clash against RCB on Sunday. The stakes are high for both teams. DC, currently in fifth place with 12 points from 12 matches, are still alive in the playoff race. A win against RCB could propel them past Chennai Super Kings (CSK) and into the coveted fourth spot. However, a loss could see them overtaken by RCB, who sit at seventh place with 10 points. While a loss wouldn't completely eliminate DC from the playoff contention, it would significantly decrease their chances of finishing in the top four, which is crucial for playoff qualification.
ALSO READ: WATCH - MS Dhoni's beautiful gesture, stops security from manhandling fan invading pitch to meet him
Ganguly's plea to dodge Pant's suspension in vain
Facing a crucial match without their captain, DC weren't taking the suspension lying down. Sourav Ganguly, the franchise's Director of Cricket, and head coach Ricky Ponting appeared before BCCI Ombudsman Justice Vineet Saran to appeal the one-match ban for Rishabh Pant. Representing the BCCI was CEO Hemang Amin. Ganguly presented a specific argument for Pant's defense. He highlighted that while Rajasthan Royals batsmen hit 13 sixes during their innings, the fielding side was only given time allowance for retrieving the balls on three occasions. He further questioned why the time spent on reviewing Sanju Samson's dismissal through DRS and the time wasted due to the RR captain's protest weren't factored into the slow over-rate calculation.
"Mr. Sourav Ganguly, appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that during the course of the innings of Rajasthan Royals, 13 sixes were hit by their batters but the consequential. Ball Retrieval Allowance of 0.30 minutes has only been granted on three (3) occasions to the Appellant. Further, it has been submitted that the 3.0 minutes allowance granted for the review of the dismissal of Mr. Sanju Samson (batter of Rajasthan Royals) was insufficient as Mr. Samson had protested, which consumed extra time, and the dismissal involved a review time of more than 3 minutes," read BCCI's document on Pant's hearing.
Ricky Ponting too made a failed attempt to defend Pant
Ricky Ponting, the head coach, took a different approach in his defense of Pant. He argued that the bowlers themselves contributed to the slow over-rate by bowling several wide deliveries towards the end of the innings. According to Ponting, these wide balls left Pant with "no time" to make up for the lost time caused by other factors during the match.
Rishabh Pant himself also joined the appeal hearing. He argued against the BCCI's decision, citing two reasons. Firstly, he pointed to the weather conditions in Delhi during the match, implying that these conditions may have played a role in slowing down the game's pace. Secondly, he reiterated the point raised by Ganguly regarding the time consumed during the DRS review for Sanju Samson's dismissal.
"Mr. Rishabh Pant, the Appellant has submitted that the delay was also caused due to the fact that the match day in consideration was the hottest day in Delhi and thus the heat was a major contributing factor in the slow over rate," the document further added.
Why BCCI rejected Ganguly and Ponting's arguments?
BCCI CEO Hemang Amin pointed out that even though Rajasthan Royals batsmen hit 13 sixes, they still managed to maintain the over-rate. This suggests that the time allowance for ball retrieval might not have been the main factor slowing down the game for DC.
Lack of evidence: The BCCI highlighted that the Delhi Capitals team, the appellant, didn't provide any written submissions or calculations to support their claim that the time allowance for ball retrieval or other factors were insufficient.
Missing defense for wide deliveries: While Ponting argued that wide deliveries by DC bowlers contributed to the slow over-rate, there's no mention of him providing any evidence or specific details to support this claim.
MORE ON SPORTS TAK:
