The IPL 2025 clash between Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) and Lucknow Super Giants (LSG) was already high on drama, but the 17th over brought a moment that set the cricket world abuzz. LSG’s Digvesh Rathi attempted a ‘Mankad’ run-out on RCB’s Jitesh Sharma, who was well outside his crease at the non-striker’s end. Yet, to the surprise of many, Jitesh was adjudged not out. Here’s why.
The Incident: High Stakes and High Drama
On the final delivery of the 17th over, with RCB chasing a daunting 228-run target, Digvesh Rathi noticed Jitesh Sharma backing up too far at the non-striker’s end. Rathi halted his delivery stride and whipped off the bails, appealing for a run-out—commonly referred to as a ‘Mankad’.
The umpires referred the appeal to the third umpire, and replays confirmed Jitesh was indeed out of his ground when the bails were removed. However, the decision that followed sparked debate and confusion across the cricketing community.
The Rule That Saved Jitesh Sharma
Despite being outside the crease, Jitesh Sharma was declared not out. The reason lies in a subtle but crucial change in the MCC (Marylebone Cricket Club) Laws of Cricket regarding non-striker run-outs:
Law 38.3.1: A non-striker can be run out at any time from when the ball comes into play until the instant the bowler would normally be expected to release the ball.
Law 38.3.1.1: That instant is defined as the moment the bowler’s arm reaches the highest point in the delivery swing.
Law 38.3.1.2: Once the bowler has reached that point, it’s no longer possible for the bowler to run out the non-striker under this law.
In this case, the third umpire ruled that Digvesh Rathi had already completed his bowling action—his arm had passed the point of delivery—before he attempted to run out Jitesh. According to the law, the opportunity for a Mankad dismissal had passed, making Jitesh not out, regardless of his position outside the crease.
Was the Appeal Withdrawn? The Role of Rishabh Pant
Adding to the drama, LSG captain Rishabh Pant was seen withdrawing the appeal and sharing a sportsmanlike hug with Jitesh Sharma. However, the third umpire clarified that the not-out decision was based strictly on the cricketing law, not on Pant’s withdrawal of the appeal. Even if the appeal had stood, Jitesh would have survived because the run-out attempt was made too late in the delivery action.
Key Takeaways from the Mankad Controversy
- The law protects the non-striker once the bowler’s arm passes the point of release.
- The third umpire’s decision was based on the timing of Rathi’s action, not the withdrawal of the appeal.
- Jitesh Sharma’s reprieve allowed him to play a match-winning knock, scoring 85* off 33 balls and securing RCB’s highest-ever IPL chase.
What This Means for Cricket
This incident highlights the importance of understanding the latest MCC rules, especially as the game evolves. It also reignites the debate over the ethics and spirit of the Mankad, a legal but controversial form of dismissal.
FAQs
1. What is a Mankad dismissal in cricket?
A Mankad is when the bowler runs out the non-striker for leaving the crease before the ball is delivered. It’s named after Indian cricketer Vinoo Mankad.
2. Why was Jitesh Sharma not out despite being outside the crease?
He was not out because the bowler had already completed his delivery action, as per MCC Law 38.3.1.2, making the run-out attempt invalid.
3. Did Rishabh Pant’s withdrawal of the appeal affect the decision?
No, the third umpire’s decision was based solely on the timing of the bowler’s action, not on the withdrawal of the appeal.
4. Has the Mankad law changed recently?
Yes, the MCC clarified the law to specify the exact point at which a non-striker can be run out, making it clearer for umpires and players.
5. What was the impact of this incident on the match?
Jitesh Sharma went on to play a match-winning innings, helping RCB chase down 228 and secure a top-two finish in IPL 2025.
Conclusion
The Jitesh Sharma Mankad controversy in IPL 2025 is a textbook example of how modern cricket laws can influence high-stakes matches. While the incident sparked debates about sportsmanship and the spirit of the game, the third umpire’s decision was firmly rooted in the latest MCC regulations. As the game continues to evolve, players, fans, and officials must stay updated on the rules that govern these dramatic moments.