During a thrilling ICC Women’s World Cup match between India and Pakistan, a controversial moment unfolded in the fourth over of Pakistan’s innings. Pakistan batter Muneeba Ali had just survived an LBW appeal when the ball diverted to India’s Deepti Sharma at slip. Noticing Muneeba was out of her crease, Sharma swiftly dislodged the bails. Following a detailed review, Muneeba was declared out, as her bat was airborne and not grounded behind the popping crease when the stumps were broken.
To truly grasp this decision, we need to delve into specific Laws of Cricket. A crucial detail is that the ball remained ‘live’ even after the initial LBW appeal. An appeal, even if for LBW, doesn’t automatically render the ball dead. In this instance, the LBW appeal was turned down, the ball hadn’t yet reached the wicket-keeper, and Deepti Sharma’s quick reaction clearly showed that the game was still very much in play.
The central point of contention was whether Muneeba was safely in her ground when the bails were removed. Video evidence unequivocally demonstrated her bat was airborne. This led many to question if ‘Law 30.1.2’, also known as the ‘bouncing bat Law’ (introduced in 2010), was applicable. This particular law offers protection to batters who, while actively running or diving towards the crease, briefly lose contact with the ground after initially grounding their bat or body behind the popping crease. However, this protection is specifically for players in motion. Muneeba, in contrast, was stationary, having established her guard outside the popping crease. Neither her feet nor her bat moved back into the safe zone in an attempt to run; her bat was simply lifted. The spirit of this rule is to safeguard batters during dynamic plays, not those who are static and merely lift their bat or lose balance. Therefore, based on a strict interpretation, the third umpire’s decision to declare her out was sound.
Another point of debate centered on the specific type of dismissal. Given Muneeba wasn’t attempting a run, some argued she should have been ‘stumped’ rather than ‘run out’. However, the correct ruling was indeed ‘run out’. This is because the stumps were broken by a direct throw from a fielder, not solely by the wicket-keeper, and critically, there was no active attempt to score a run. With the ball still live and no ‘no-ball’ having occurred, the fielder’s action of hitting the stumps resulted in a legitimate ‘run out’. Thus, the umpires’ final decision was completely in line with the rules.