AB de Villiers openly critiqued the handling of Rishabh Pant’s dismissal, voicing concerns over how technology and the Decision Review System (DRS) were applied in such a high-stakes moment. Known for his astute observations on cricket, De Villiers emphasized the importance of clear, consistent officiating, especially in a closely contested Test match. The incident unfolded when Pant, with his typical aggressive approach, came down the pitch to Ajaz Patel, attempting a defensive shot. The ball struck his pads and popped into the hands of wicketkeeper Tom Blundell, sparking immediate appeals from the fielding side. However, the on-field umpire ruled Pant not out, as he believed there was no contact between the bat and ball.
Tom Latham, New Zealand’s captain, and Ajaz Patel were convinced that Pant had edged the ball and immediately called for a review. As replays were shown, there appeared to be a spike on the ultra-edge (snickometer) when the ball was near the bat. However, the replays suggested a potential simultaneous contact with Pant’s pad, which could also have caused the noise picked up by the technology. This created ambiguity, as the spike did not conclusively indicate a bat-ball contact. In such situations, the DRS protocol generally favors the on-field decision unless there is conclusive evidence to overturn it. Nevertheless, the third umpire ruled in favor of the fielding side, declaring Pant out.
De Villiers, known for his keen understanding of the game’s technical aspects, took to X (formerly Twitter) to question the basis of the decision. He raised an essential point about the challenges of interpreting ultra-edge spikes in cases where multiple factors, like the bat and pad, may create simultaneous sounds. He remarked that technology can sometimes lead to "grey areas," especially in situations where the ball’s movement and sound suggest conflicting interpretations. "Did Pant get bat on that or not?" De Villiers pondered, pointing out that it can be difficult to determine with absolute certainty in cases where the sound from the bat hitting the pad coincides with the ball passing the bat. He argued that without the assistance of Hotspot, which could have provided additional visual evidence of any contact, the third umpire might have been better off staying with the on-field umpire's initial not-out decision.
Further, De Villiers emphasized that it’s vital for the third umpire to make calls that uphold the spirit of fairness and clarity, especially when the match hangs in the balance. He stressed that if there is doubt, the original decision should be maintained unless the third umpire sees a clear deviation in the ball’s trajectory after passing the bat. “There must've been doubt,” De Villiers argued, calling for consistent decision-making to avoid these kinds of controversies in the future.
Pant’s frustration was palpable as he reluctantly walked off the field, exchanging a few words with the on-field umpire, clearly disappointed by the decision. In the dressing room, he continued to express his discontent, visibly shaken by the dismissal after a hard-fought innings. His resilient 64 off 57 balls, which included nine boundaries and a six, had placed India within striking distance, needing just 41 more runs with three wickets left.
The decision proved to be a turning point. With Pant gone, India’s chances waned, and the dismissal shifted momentum towards New Zealand, reigniting debate on how technology should be applied in critical situations. De Villiers’s comments underscore a broader call from the cricketing community for more reliable and transparent use of DRS, especially during pivotal moments where the outcome of a match can hinge on a single decision. As technology continues to shape modern cricket, voices like De Villiers emphasize the importance of using it judiciously, ensuring that players and fans alike can trust in the fairness of each decision.
