Afghanistan all-rounder Karim Janat feels India captain Rohit Sharma should not have been allowed to bat in the second Super Over in the third and final T20 Intetnational match between India and Afghanistan in Bengaluru. The intense India vs Afghanistan 3rd T20I in Bengaluru witnessed an unprecedented occurrence as a double Super Over was played to determine the final outcome of the fixture.
What led to the controversy?
In the first innings, Rohit Sharma scored his fifth T20I hundred, propelling team India to a formidable total of 212/4. However, Afghanistan managed to match the score, leading to a tie and subsequently prompting a Super Over. For the first time ever in T20 International cricket history, the Super Over also ended in a tie, necessitating a second Super Over to break the deadlock.
During the first Super Over, Rohit Sharma made a strategic move by retiring himself out just before the final ball, substituting Rinku Singh for the last delivery due to Singh’s faster speed between the wickets as India needed two to win off the last ball. However, under MCC laws, if a player is ‘Retired Out’ in the first Super Over, they are ineligible to bat in the second Super Over.
Yashasvi Jaiswal, positioned at the striker’s end, managed to score only a single run, leading to the match heading into a “second Super Over”. Despite this, there was controversy surrounding the decision to have Rohit Sharma and Rinku Singh as the batters for the start of the second Super Over, raising eyebrows and drawing criticism.
The decision to include Rohit Sharma as a batter in the second Super Over after he retired out in the first one was criticized for allegedly violating the rule that prohibits a player from returning to bat after being retired out.
Rohit Sharma shouldn’t have been allowed to do that, says Karim Janat
Afghanistan all-rounder Karim Janat has now conveyed his team’s perspective on the matter, emphasizing that, as per the rules, a player who has retired out should not be allowed to return to bat.
“We didn’t know much about that. Our management talked to the umpires. Rohit came out to bat, but we learned later that he shouldn’t have been allowed to do that. We can’t do much about it now because what’s happened has happened. The captain and coach discussed about it later, but it was all between them,” Janat told Hindustan Times.
ICC’s playing conditions states: “[a]ny batsman dismissed in any previous Super Over shall be ineligible to bat in any subsequent Super Over” which is what has created a controversy. However, the umpires did not state whether Rohit was “retired out” or “retired hurt.”
But then again as per law 25.4.2 of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), guardian of laws, a batter is considered “retired not out” only if he retires because of illness, injury or any other circumstances and fails to resume his innings. He/She is allowed to resume innings only in these circumstances, which was clearly not the case with Rohit in the third and final T20I at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru.
