Ravindra Jadeja’s dismissal on Day 6 of the World Test Championship (ICC WTC) final drew harsh reactions from fans after several of them speculated if Neil Wagner’s delivery was a no-ball due to the placement of his back-foot.
New Zealand was crowned as the inaugural ICC Test World Champions after beating India by 8 wickets in the final of the ICC WTC at the Ageas Bowl in Southampton on June 23. It was a clinical performance from the No.1 ranked Test team who overcame hurdles like rain washing out two days and constant interruptions due to bad light.
However, Devon Conway and Kane Williamson with the bat and Kyle Jamieson, Trent Boult, and Tim Southee with the ball came to the party, whereas Indian batsmen faltered despite spirited performances from Mohammad Shami, Ravichandran Ashwin, and Ishant Sharma.
Reason Why Ravindra Jadeja’s Dismissal Was As Per Laws Of The Game And Neil Wagner’s Delivery Was Not A No-Ball
An interesting battle was seen between Neil Wagner and Ravindra Jadeja as the Kiwi left-arm pacer peppered the Saurashtra all-rounder with short balls from around the wicket. The left-arm seamer’s strategy earned due reward when Jadeja poked at one that was angled across him and got an outside edge which was easily caught by BJ Watling.
However eagle-eyed cricket fans saw something amiss during the whole scenario. Many took to Twitter and questioned whether Jadeja had been dismissed off a legal delivery or not, as it was found that Wagner’s back foot had touched and crossed the return crease, deeming it as a no-ball.
The third umpire had double-checked whether that had happened or not, as Wagner went really wide of the crease to deliver that ball, and one of the replays showed that the bowler’s foot had actually crossed the return crease which led to the fans questioning the legitimacy of the dismissal.
But the decision stood correct as per the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) cricket laws and rules. Specifically the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) Law 21.5.1 states that the point at which the back foot lands will be taken into account for deeming it a no-ball or a fair one.
“The bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his/her stated mode of delivery,” the law states.
Since Wagner’s foot had landed behind the return crease and though the foot went beyond it later, there were no issues with the ball.