IPL: Varun Chakravarthy reacts to no-ball controversy in MI-SRH match
What's the story
Kolkata Knight Riders' spinner Varun Chakravarthy has weighed in on the recent controversial no-ball incident in the IPL 2025 match between the Mumbai Indians and Sunrisers Hyderabad. The incident occurred at Wankhede when MI's Ryan Rickelton was given not out due to a technical violation by the SRH wicketkeeper, not the bowler. The decision has led to a debate among fans and former cricketers alike. Meanwhile, MI won the match by four wickets. Here's more.
Details
The incident that sparked the debate
In the seventh over of MI's innings, while chasing a target of 163, Rickelton was initially given out off-spinner Zeeshan Ansari's delivery. However, the third umpire stepped in and overturned the decision. The reason: SRH keeper Heinrich Klaasen had his gloves slightly ahead of the stumps as Ansari bowled. This technicality triggered a rare no-ball call, and Rickelton was recalled from dismissal.
Disagreement
Chakravarthy disagrees with the no-ball ruling
However, Chakravarthy disagrees with the ruling, calling it unnecessarily harsh on the bowler, especially when the violation is minor and unintentional. He took to X to express his views, "If the keeper's gloves come in front of the stumps, it should be a dead ball and a warning to the keeper so that he doesn't do that again!!! Not a no-ball and a free hit!! What did the bowler do????"
Twitter Post
X post by Chakravarthy questioning the no-ball
If the keeper's gloves come in front of the stumps, it should be a dead ball and a warning to the keeper so that he doesn't do that again !!! Not a no ball and a free hit!! What did the bowler do🙄🙄
— Varun Chakaravarthy🇮🇳 (@chakaravarthy29) April 17, 2025
Thinking out loud!! What do u all think???
Rule explanation
The rule behind the no-ball call
According to MCC Law 27.3, a wicketkeeper must remain entirely behind the stumps at the striker's end until the ball hits the bat or passes the stumps. If the position is broken too early, even by a fraction, it's considered a breach of law and should be called a no-ball by umpires. Despite being dismissed in later overs, Rickelton's earlier reprieve continues to stir discussions among fans and experts alike.