Speaking from Dubai, Sri Lanka’s head coach, Sanath Jayasuriya, expressed immense pride in the performances of young talents Abhishek Sharma and Pathum Nissanka. However, his post-match comments quickly shifted focus to a contentious Super Over incident that exposed what he termed “grey areas” in cricket’s rulebook.
Jayasuriya specifically highlighted Abhishek Sharma’s fearless approach. “Abhishek is playing his natural game, and crucially, we’ve empowered him to continue doing so,” Jayasuriya stated. “That’s vital because when a player is performing instinctively, it’s our role to nurture that. What’s impressive is his ability to adapt; he knows when to rein it in after the powerplay, showcasing growing experience and skill. The coaching staff has truly given him the freedom to play his authentic game, and that’s making all the difference.”
While Sharma’s explosive 61 set the tone, it was Pathum Nissanka’s magnificent 107 off just 58 balls that brought Sri Lanka tantalizingly close to victory. “Pathum delivered a brilliant innings to reach that formidable total,” Jayasuriya commented. “His century, built over 20 overs, truly set us a competitive 202 runs. It was truly unfortunate that his dismissal on the very first ball of the final over ultimately became the turning point in the match.”
Explaining why the star centurion, Pathum Nissanka, wasn’t seen batting in the crucial Super Over, Jayasuriya disclosed, “He had been managing a hamstring injury throughout the last two games, and we were quite concerned about his fitness.”
The Controversial Super Over Incident
The Super Over itself was marred by a truly bizarre and controversial moment. On the fourth delivery, after Arshdeep Singh had already claimed Kusal Perera’s wicket, Dasun Shanaka missed a ball that Sanju Samson collected cleanly. As Arshdeep appealed for a caught-behind, the umpire quickly raised his finger, even though replays later confirmed no bat contact. Simultaneously, Samson dislodged the bails for a clear run-out. However, Sri Lanka’s appeal, supported by the umpire, led to the run-out being overturned based on a technicality: the ball was deemed “dead” the instant the initial caught-behind decision was made. Though Shanaka was ultimately dismissed on the very next ball, the incident sparked significant debate.
“While it’s currently within the rules,” Jayasuriya acknowledged, “when an appeal for a catch is made, the initial decision takes precedence. Even though the replay confirmed it wasn’t out, and a clear run-out was effected, the ball was technically dead. This game has definitely highlighted several areas that require urgent review to refine the existing cricket laws.”
The crux of the controversy lies in rule 20.1.1.3 of the cricket law, which states: “The ball is dead when a batter is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.” This rule implies that, regardless of a subsequent, undeniable run-out, the ball becomes inactive the precise moment an initial dismissal (even an incorrect one) is signaled by the umpire. It’s a technicality that left many puzzled and emphasized the need for clearer interpretations in high-pressure situations.