Why India’s Late Appeal Was Correct as Wide Decision Changes the Finish Against Japan

A controversial wide call in the final over of India’s rain shortened T20I against Japan created confusion and frustration before the decision was eventually corrected, helping India secure a narrow two run victory.

The incident came during a dramatic finish in Sano, where rain reduced the one off match to five overs per side. Japan needed eight runs from the final four deliveries and appeared to have a realistic chance of producing a major upset against India.

With Axar Patel bowling, Japan batter Alexander Shirai Patmore attempted a reverse hit. The delivery went past him on the side that would normally have been considered his leg side, and the striker’s end umpire, Chris Thurgate, called it a wide.

Indian players immediately questioned the decision.

The controversy intensified when an almost identical delivery was bowled on the following ball and was again called wide. That decision reduced Japan’s target to six runs from four balls.

India continued to protest the call, prompting leg umpire Chris Brown, a New Zealand official who is part of the ICC Elite Panel, to intervene.

Brown asked Thurgate to reconsider the decision. The original call was overturned and the match situation returned to seven runs required from three deliveries.

India eventually held on to win by two runs, defending the lowest total ever successfully defended in T20 cricket.

The incident raised questions about why the second wide was overturned and whether the umpire had the authority to change his decision. The relevant playing guidelines provide the explanation.

What Happens When a Batter Attempts a Reverse Hit?

The laws and ICC umpiring guidelines contain specific instructions for situations in which a batter changes the direction from which they intend to play the ball.

When a batter attempts a reverse hit or a switch hit, umpires are instructed to consider both sides of the wicket as the off side for the purpose of judging a wide.

Under that interpretation, a delivery must travel beyond the specified wide guideline, which is 75 centimetres from the outer edge of the relevant stump, to be called a wide.

The principle is designed to account for the advantage a batter gains by changing their stance or attempting to hit the ball from the opposite direction.

A delivery that might ordinarily be considered a leg side ball can therefore be judged differently when the batter changes position to play a reverse or switch hit.

Shirai Patmore’s Attempt Still Came Under the Rule

One of the immediate questions surrounding the incident was whether the guideline applied because Shirai Patmore attempted a reverse hit rather than a conventional switch hit.

The distinction does not change the umpiring interpretation.

The guideline applies to both reverse hits, where the batter’s grip remains unchanged, and switch hits, where the batter changes their grip.

That means the batter does not have to complete a traditional switch hit for the wide guideline to change.

The moment the batter attempts to use the opposite side of the wicket to play the ball, the relevant interpretation comes into effect.

What If the Batter Changes Position After Release?

Another question was whether Shirai Patmore moved into his reverse hitting position only after Axar had released the ball.

Under the umpiring guidelines, that timing does not alter the decision.

The purpose of the rule is to prevent a batter from gaining an advantage by moving across the wicket and then having the delivery judged according to the original stance.

Once the batter attempts the reverse or switch movement, both sides are treated as off side for determining whether the delivery is wide.

Therefore, the fact that the movement occurred after Axar had released the ball did not prevent the guideline from applying.

Could the Umpire Change the Decision?

The match did not have a television umpire or a Decision Review System.

That meant there was no formal review process available to India for the wide decision.

However, the absence of DRS does not mean an umpire cannot correct a decision.

An on field umpire can change a decision before the next delivery is bowled if they realize that the original call was incorrect.

That is what happened after the second wide.

Brown, positioned at square leg, recognized the issue and intervened before play continued. Thurgate then changed the decision, restoring the match equation to seven runs from three balls.

Why Was the First Wide Not Changed?

The most obvious remaining question concerns the first wide.

If the second delivery was judged incorrectly, why was the original call allowed to remain?

One possible explanation is that the first decision happened quickly and caught the officials by surprise. By the time the error was recognized, the next delivery had already been bowled.

Once another ball has been delivered, the opportunity to correct the previous decision has effectively passed.

That does not mean the first decision should have influenced the second one.

The fact that an earlier error was not corrected does not provide a reason for repeating the same mistake on the next delivery.

The second decision was therefore corrected before the match could move on.

A Controversy That Ultimately Ended Correctly

The dramatic sequence became one of the defining moments of an already unusual match.

Japan entered the final over needing eight runs from four deliveries against an Indian side defending a small total on a difficult, rain affected surface.

Two successive wide calls initially appeared to give Japan a major advantage.

The second call was then overturned, restoring India’s control of the contest.

Japan ultimately fell two runs short, allowing India to complete a remarkable defence and set a new record for the lowest total successfully defended in T20 cricket.

The episode also highlighted the importance of understanding the specific rules surrounding reverse and switch hits.

While the initial wide call generated understandable confusion, the eventual correction followed the ICC’s established umpiring guidance.

In a match decided by only two runs, a single delivery and a single interpretation of the rules had a decisive impact on the final outcome.

Courtesy: cricinfo