With six needed off the final over, MS Dhoni fell back to his trusted death-ball bowler in Bravo in CSK’s attempt to defend a 136-run total. The Trinidadian had bowled just one over in the innings before that – the 18th – and attempted to defend six runs with Shimron Hetmyer on strike. The first ball was full and wide, a strategy Bravo tried to repeat off the second ball too. However, the ball flew out of his hand, ending up way outside off-stump beyond the pitch, even past wicketkeeper MS Dhoni who was standing up to the stumps.

Umpire Anil Chaudhary first appeared to signal a no-ball, with the ball flying away from Hetmyer’s reach, but then changed his decision to a wide after seeing replays. The decision to call it a wide drew criticism from some quarters on social media, especially given the context of the game where a free-hit could have sealed the deal for Delhi Capitals.

However, a closer inspection of the laws suggests that the umpire was correct in giving it a wide ball. According to law 21.7, pertaining to ‘no ball’ decisions, “The umpire shall call and signal No ball if a ball which he/she considers to have been delivered, without having previously touched bat or person of the striker, – bounces more than once or rolls along the ground before it reaches the popping crease or – pitches wholly or partially off the pitch as defined in Law 6.1 (Area of pitch) before it reaches the line of the striker’s wicket.”

Since Bravo’s delivery did not pitch before reaching the batter’s crease and ended up being delivered way outside the off-stump, the umpire made the right call in deeming it a wide, despite many, including commentator Sunil Gavaskar, questioning the call.

“That was clearly a no-ball,” Gavaskar was quoted as saying. “We’ve had a couple of decisions from TV umpires, which in these circumstances can make the difference between winning and losing, and that shouldn’t happen.”

The incident has exposed a loophole that seemingly needs a fix. The law is intended to deem those deliveries that pitch outside the playing surface (before reaching the batting crease) as no-balls, and is not intended to punish balls which are straight enough, but pitch after passing the wicket. A wide full-toss outside the pitch fits into both categories, but is only deemed a wide, because of the “pitch before it reaches the line of the striker’s wicket” clause. Until the introduction of the free hit rule, the difference between a wide and no-ball was largely academic, but now the distinction can be potentially match-turning.

Further, Chaudhary appeared to consult third umpire Saiyed Khalid, who checked the delivery and helped the on-field umpire switch his decision from no-ball to wide. While the TV umpire’s help proved to be pivotal in bringing about the correct decision, he shouldn’t, technically speaking, have been consulted, since the delivery was a non-wicket taking one.

While all front-foot and back-foot no-balls are being automatically checked off the field in the IPL, Appendix D, clause 2.5.5 of the IPL playing conditions states any further checks can only be made “following a dismissal”.

Hopefully, the Bravo incident will spark a re-writing of the laws, which, even 140 years into international cricket, continue to stump fans and experts alike.

You can watch the delivery here: