Why did IPL reject Sourav Ganguly's Sanju Samson masterplan to overturn Rishabh Pant's ban?


Why did IPL reject Sourav Ganguly's Sanju Samson masterplan to overturn Rishabh Pant's ban?

IPL 2024: File photo of Sanju Samson out and Rishabh Pant out.© Twitter

On Saturday, Delhi Capitals captain Rishabh Pant was banned for one match and fined Rs 30 lakh for his team's third slow over-rate offense in IPL 2024. Under this development, the Ricky Ponting-coached team will not get Pant's services against Royal Challengers Bangalore. As the race for the play-offs heats up, an important match will be played on Sunday. DC's third slow over rate offense occurred in the match against Rajasthan Royals. In that match, the controversial dismissal of RR captain Sanju Samson, in which he was caught very close to the boundary by DC's Shai Hope, became a topic of discussion.

The cricket world was divided on whether it was out or not. Interestingly, that dismissal made its way into DC's appeal against Pant's ban.

In a document where the BCCI Ombudsman's decision can be found, details of the DC's appeal can be found.

“Mr. Rishabh Pant, Mr. Sourav Ganguly and Mr. Ricky Ponting have appeared on behalf of Delhi Capitals along with Mr. Sunil Gupta, CEO of Delhi Capitals. Mr. Hemang Amin, BCCI CEO has appeared on behalf of BCCI. Mr. .Related Match Referee Daniel Manohar has also appeared,” read the document.

The document further outlines DC Cricket Director Ganguly's reasoning regarding the matter.

“Shri Sourav Ganguly appearing on behalf of the Appellant has submitted that during the innings of Rajasthan Royals, 13 sixes were hit by their batsmen but the resultant ball retrieval allowance of 0.30 minutes has been given only on three (3) occasions to the Appellant. For this, it is submitted that the allowance of 3.0 minutes given for the review of dismissal of Shri Sanju Samson (Rajasthan Royals batsman) was inadequate as Shri Samson protested, which involved 3 minutes of extra time. A review time of more than 100,000 was involved.

“Mr Ricky Ponting appearing for the Appellant has further submitted that due to the Delhi Capitals bowlers bowling many wides towards the end of the innings, there was no time left for the Appellant to compensate for the delay, because of the use of spinners. There were no overs left to help boost the over rate, Mr Ponting also submitted that the appellant, who is the captain of Delhi Capitals and a wicket-keeper batsman, should not be held responsible for this in the match. There was a delay because of the bowlers.”

However, the argument was rejected.

“The essence of the Appellant's arguments revolve around the issue of 13 sixes imposed by Rajasthan Royals and the dismissal of Mr. Samson, in the context of both of which it is submitted that adequate allowance has not been provided to the Appellant. However the Appellant has presented no evidence from the record to substantiate its contentions, no statistical information has been presented showing how much additional time was taken to review the 13 sixes and Mr. Samson's dismissal.

“When faced with the question of evidence for his pleas, the Appellant submitted that since the team has not been provided with actual video footage of the match, the Appellant was unable to provide a calculation of the time spent in ball retrieval and review. Unable, as well as other delays”.

Topics mentioned in this article


Leave a Comment

“The Untold Story: Yung Miami’s Response to Jimmy Butler’s Advances During an NBA Playoff Game” “Unveiling the Secrets: 15 Astonishing Facts About the PGA Championship”