Why Gagnuly's Samson Masterplan To Reverse Pant's Ban Was Rejected By IPL

On Saturday, Delhi Capitals captain Rishabh Pant was banned for one match and fined Rs 30 lakh for his team third slow over-rate offence in the IPL 2024. The development will see the Ricky Ponting coached-side miss Pant's services against Royal Challengers Bengaluru on Sunday in a crucial match as race for play-offs heats up. DC's third slow over-rate offence happened in the match against Rajasthan Royals. In that match, RR skipper Sanju Samson's controversial dismissal, which saw him get caught by DC's Shai Hope very close to the boundary, became the talking point. 

The cricket world was divided on whether it was out or not. Interestingly, that dismissal made it way into DC's appeal against Pant's ban. 

In a document, where the decision of the BCCI Ombudsman can be found, the details DC's appeal can be found. 

"Mr. Rishabh Pant, Mr. Sourav Ganguly and Mr. Ricky Ponting have appeared on behalf of the Delhi Capitals along with Mr. Sunil Gupta, CEO of Delhi Capitals. Mr. Hemang Amin, BCCI CEO has appeared on behalf of BCCI. Mr. Daniel Manohar, the concerned Match Referee, has also appeared," read the document.

The document further stated the argument of Ganguly, DC Director of Cricket, 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.

"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."

The argument was, however, rejected. 

"The crux of the submissions of the Appellant revolves around the issue of 13 sixes hit by Rajasthan Royals and the dismissal of Mr. Samson, in context of both of which it has been submitted that adequate allowance has not been provided to the Appellant. However, the Appellant has not submitted any evidence from the record to substantiate their submissions. No statistical information has been submitted explaining exactly how much time was additionally consumed by the 13 sixes and in the review of the dismissal of Mr. Samson.

"When confronted with the question of evidence for their submissions, the Appellant submitted that since the Team is not provided the actual video footage of the Match, the Appellant is unable to provide the calculations as to the time which was consumed in ball retrieval and reviews, as well as other delays".