Explained: Why has Rishabh Pant been suspended? What did he say in his defence?

Delhi Capitals captain Rishabh Pant will miss the crucial match against Royal Challengers Bengaluru after being handed a one-match suspension on Saturday. The DC skipper has been handed the punishment for maintaining a slow over-rate for the third time in the IPL season. He was also fined Rs 30 lakh for the Code of Conduct breach that took place against Rajasthan Royals on 7 May.

“Mr Rishabh Pant, Captain, Delhi Capitals has been fined has been fined and suspended for one match for breaching the IPL Code of Conduct after his team maintained a slow over-rate against Rajasthan Royals at the Arun Jaitley Stadium, Delhi on May 07, 2024,” an IPL statement read.

How slow were DC in their overs against RR?

As per the rules, each team in the IPL is allowed 85 minutes to complete their quota of 20 overs i.e. each team is allocated 4.25 minutes per over to complete their 20 overs. In DC vs RR, Delhi Capitals took 117.82 minutes to finish their quota of overs.

Considering the conditions, the Match Referee Daniel Manohar allowed DC and Pant an allowance of 26 minutes (automatic
allowance of 8 minutes and discretionary allowance of 18
minutes). Despite these allowances, Pant-led DC exceeded the permissible time limit by 6.82 minutes. As a result, they were behind by 1.6047 overs (@ 4.25 minutes per over).

When did the previous offences occur?

Delhi Capitals have previously been found guilty of maintaining slow over rates against Chennai Super Kings (31 March) and Kolkata Knight Riders (3 April).

“As it was his team’s third offence of the season under the IPL’s Code of Conduct relating to minimum over-rate offences, Rishabh Pant was fined INR 30 lakh and suspended for one match.”

All other DC players were also penalised. “The rest of the members of the Playing XI, including the Impact Player, were each individually fined either INR 12 lakh or 50 per cent of their respective match fees, whichever is lesser.”

Did Rishabh Pant challenge the ruling?

Yes. DC filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Match Referee which was subsequently referred to the BCCI Ombudsman. The Ombudsman conducted a virtual hearing involving concerned parties and stated that the decision of the Match Referee would stand.

“As per Article 8 of the IPL Code of Conduct, the Delhi Capitals filed an appeal challenging the ruling of the Match Referee. Following this, the appeal was referred to the BCCI Ombudsman for review.

“The Ombudsman conducted a virtual hearing and affirmed that the decision of the Match Referee remains final and binding,” the statement added.

What is Delhi Capitals’ defence in the case?

Delhi Capitals Director of Cricket Sourav Ganguly, head coach Ricky Ponting, CEO Sunil Gupta and Pant appeared in the virtual hearing. Ganguly argued that RR hit 13 sixes in the innings and Ball Retrieval Allowance of 0.30 minutes has only been granted thrice. He also said a review of Sanju Samson’s controversial dismissal has been granted only three minutes in the allowance when the entire incident took longer with the RR skipper also remonstrating with the umpires.

Ponting said in Pant’s defence that there were wide deliveries late on by DC bowlers which took more time and they had no option to recover the time lost. The former Aussie captain also stated that wicketkeeper Pant should not be held responsible for delay caused by the bowlers.

Pant, meanwhile, said the heat played a role in them bowling slower. The 26-year-old calculated Samson’s review and dismissal to have taken approximately five-six minutes and the three minute allowance granted is inadequate.

What did BCCI say in their judgement?

Hemang Amin, BCCI CEO, addressed the points raised by Delhi Capitals in their defence. On the 13 sixes hit point, BCCI pointed out that Delhi hit 12 sixes of their own but Rajasthan Royals did not err in their over-rate. He also shared that RR bowled their quota in 102 minutes and after addressing the 18 minute allowances, they finished in 84 minutes which was one minute better than the allowed limit.

BCI said all 13 sixes would not have gone into the stands and needed lengthy retrieval time. With DC not providing evidence towards this point, it was found that “more time to be granted on this count is not worthy of acceptance”.

BCCI also said Pant and DC did not provide written submissions and have only argued their case verbally. It added that DC haven’t provided any calculations to justify their points raised including towards it being a hot day in Delhi.

On the topic of heat being an issue, BCCI said since Rajasthan Royals bowled first, they would have faced the brunt of the heat more than Delhi Capitals who went second. As a result, this point was also ruled out.

The Ombudsman also said the wide balls bowled is an error on the part of Delhi Capitals and they should be held responsible for it.

On the Samson review, BCCI found that Delhi Capitals had again not provided any mathematical reasoning or evidence behind their argument. Pant made oral submissions in this regard without any match documents or internal records to substantiate their argument.

With Pant and Delhi Capitals not being able to provide evidence to overturn the charge, the decision made by the Match Referee stood and the appeal has been dismissed.