The decision stemmed from the team’s slow over-rate during their recent encounter against Rajasthan Royals, a match marked by contentious moments, notably involving RR skipper Sanju Samson’s dismissal, which sparked debates within the cricket fraternity.
Following the imposition of the ban, Delhi Capitals swiftly lodged an appeal before the BCCI Ombudsmanwith Pant, along with Sourav Ganguly and Ricky Pontingrepresenting the franchise. The appeal process shed light on the arguments put forth by Ganguly and Ponting, articulating the team’s perspective on the matter.Ganguly, Director of Cricket for Delhi Capitals, contended that the team had been unfairly penalized, citing instances where delayed ball retrieval allowance and extended review time impacted the over-rate calculations. Ponting echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the challenges faced by the bowlers towards the latter stages of the innings, hindering their ability to rectify the slow over-rate.
The BCCI Ombudsman’s document on the ban stated the argument of Ganguly and Ponting regarding the case.
“Mr. Sourav Ganguly, appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that during the course of the innings of Rajasthan Royals, 13 sixes were hit by their batters but the consequential Ball Retrieval Allowance of 0.30 minutes has only been granted on three (3) occasions to the Appellant. Further, it has been submitted that the 3.0 minutes allowance granted for the review of the dismissal of Mr. Sanju Samson (batter of Rajasthan Royals) was insufficient as Mr. Samson had protested, which consumed extra time, and the dismissal involved a review time of more than 3 minutes,” the document read.
“Mr. Ricky Ponting, also appearing for the Appellant has further submitted that owing to delivery of multiple wide deliveries towards the late end of the innings by the bowlers of the Delhi Capitals, there remained no time with the Appellant to compensate for the delay caused, as there remained no overs to help boost the over rate by the use of spinners. Mr. Ponting has also submitted that the Appellant, who is the Captain of the Delhi Capitals and is a wicket-keeper batsman, should not be held responsible for the delay caused by the bowlers in the match.”
However, despite the earnest appeals presented by the Delhi Capitals contingent, the Ombudsman ultimately rejected their plea, citing a lack of substantive evidence to substantiate their claims. While the team highlighted specific incidents during the match against Rajasthan Royals, the absence of statistical data and video evidence undermined the strength of their arguments.
The rejection of the appeal underscores the stringent regulatory framework governing over-rates in professional cricket, reaffirming the importance of adherence to prescribed regulations by IPL franchises.
As Delhi Capitals brace for their upcoming fixture against Royal Challengers Bengaluru without their captain, the episode serves as a stark reminder of the imperative for teams to maintain compliance with tournament regulations amidst the high-stakes environment of the IPL.
