IPL Controversy Erupts as RCB Lose Run to Puzzling Law

A contentious moment during the recent Indian Premier League (IPL) 2025 RCB Lose Run between Mumbai Indians (MI) and Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) has reignited discussions around the Decision Review System (DRS) and its implications on the Laws of Cricket. A rule-related loophole came under scrutiny after RCB were denied a run due to a technical interpretation of the playing conditions, prompting former India batter Hanuma Vihari to call for a reassessment of the regulation.

The Incident: A Run Lost Despite Not Out Verdict

At Wankhede Stadium, the incident happened on the last delivery of the RCB’s innings. Jitesh Sharma of the RCB missed a precise yorker from Mumbai Indians’ top pacer Jasprit Bumrah, which hit him in the pads. The on-field umpire lifted his finger in response to the fielding side’s LBW appeal. The RCB batsmen completed a fast single during the appeal and the instants that followed.

Jitesh chose to use DRS to contest the on-field decision because he was sure he wasn’t out. The hitter had offered a shot, and the third umpire’s assessment verified that the ball was pitched outside the line of off-stump and that the impact was also outside. As a result, Jitesh was deemed not out and the ruling was reversed.

However, the run that was taken during the play was not added to RCB’s total because of the peculiarities of the Laws of Cricket. The rule states that if the on-field umpire declares a batter out, the ball is deemed dead at that moment, regardless of whether the ruling is later overturned by review. Any runs carried out subsequent to the initial decision are therefore deemed invalid.

Hanuma Vihari’s Response and Critique

Much discussion was sparked by the occurrence, especially after Hanuma Vihari voiced his worries on the social media site X (previously Twitter). Vihari pointed out a serious contradiction in the way such cases are handled and asked for a change of the law.

“The rule needs to be changed,” Vihari wrote. “Jitesh was given out on the pitch and reviewed if you watched the final ball of the RCB innings. The impact was outside off stump, therefore the umpire had to reverse his ruling. The run would not count, which is the issue. The run would have counted if the umpire hadn’t given it out. He went on to emphasise the potential ramifications in a match-deciding situation:

What if two runs must be scored off of a single ball in the second inning? The original decision made by the umpire would decide the match’s outcome. Something to ponder?

Understanding the Rule: When is the Ball Considered Dead?

Law 20.1.1.3 of the MCC Laws of Cricket, which declares that a ball is deemed dead “when a batter is dismissed,” provides the basis for the decision to not award the run. As soon as the incident that led to the dismissal occurs, the ball is considered dead.

In the DRS era, when choices taken in real-time could be overruled subsequently, this law becomes problematic. However, any action taken between the raised finger and the review outcome is considered worthless because the “dead ball” condition is activated as soon as the batter is pronounced out, not when the final verdict is verified via DRS.

A Question of Fairness and Consistency

The wider problem is that results vary according on whether the umpire first throws the batter out or not. In the same case, the single run would have remained in play if the umpire had declared MI not out and MI had chosen to pursue an unsuccessful review. In contrast, when the batter is wrongly given out, even if proven correct via DRS, the batting side is still penalized by losing any subsequent runs.

As Vihari and a number of commentators have pointed out, this disparity raises questions regarding equity and competitive fairness, especially in hotly contested games.

Potential Repercussions in High-Stakes Situations

Even if the run lost in this specific game might not have changed the result, the consequences could be much more dire in a close game where every run matters greatly, like in a playoff or championship game.

Imagine a situation in which a hitter is mistakenly given out after running a single and two runs are needed off the final ball. Although technically correct and not disqualified, the batting team may lose the match if the review reverses the decision but the run is still not counted. The integrity of the outcome could be seriously impacted by such an outcome, which is controlled by procedural rigidity rather than the play itself.

The Way Forward: Is Reform Necessary?

The Laws of Cricket must change to accommodate the growing importance of technology in officiating. Critics contend that the game requires a more adaptable and contemporary strategy—possibly a clause granting a “delayed dead ball” status until the DRS decision is made, guaranteeing that the real actions on the pitch are not overruled by intermediate rulings.

Players and commentators are increasingly in agreement that the current interpretation is out of date and does not take into account the real-time nature of reviews. Even when technology shows that an on-field decision was wrong, the law nonetheless gives it undue weight.

Conclusion: A Law Under Scrutiny

In the larger scheme of IPL 2025, the event involving Jitesh Sharma and RCB may be a tiny footnote, but it serves as a timely reminder that cricket’s rules need to keep up with its technological advancements. Cricket’s regulatory organisations, such as the MCC and the ICC, must pay attention to discrepancies like this since DRS is now a crucial aspect of the game.

As correctly noted by Hanuma Vihari, the existing state of affairs leaves too much up to chance and the on-field umpire’s judgement. It might be time to reevaluate how human judgement and technical correction interact in a game that aims for accuracy and equity.