Explained: Why Jitesh Sharma should’ve been given out after Digvesh Rathi’s mankad attempt

The last league match of the IPL 2025 between Royal Challengers Bangalore and Lucknow Super Giants was no less than a blockbuster. RCB chased down the total of 227 in 18.4 overs to secure their place in the top 2. A controversial moment happened in the match when LSG’s spinner Digvesh Rathi tried to Mankad Jitesh Sharma. The third umpire ruled Jitesh Sharma not out, but former umpire Anil Chaudhary believes the decision should have been out at the non-striker’s end.

The third umpire, Ulhas Gandhe, used terms like “completed his delivery stride” and “past the popping crease.” Notably, these terms are not found in the official rulebook.

According to Section 38.3.1 of the IPL 2025 Playing Conditions, “If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out by the bowler attempting to run him/her out.”

“In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is broken by the bowler throwing the ball at the wicket or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.”

According to the MCC’s Laws of Cricket (section 38.3.1.1), “The instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball is defined as the moment the bowler’s arm reaches the highest point of his/her normal bowling action in the delivery swing.”

Anil Chaudhary believes the decision should have been out at the non-striker’s end

The #JiteshSharma run-out drama & #RishabhPant’s appeal withdrawal, what really happened? 🤔

Ex-umpire #AnilChaudhary breaks it all down for us. 👀#IPLPlayoffs begin 👉 Qualifier 1 | Thu, May 29 | 6 PM on Star Sports Network & JioHotstar! pic.twitter.com/ZgzL6eXaAN

— Star Sports (@StarSportsIndia) May 27, 2025

Former Indian umpire Anil Chaudhary believes the batter should have been given out at the non-striker’s end. He felt the bowler dislodged the bails before reaching the release point, which is in line with the laws for a valid run-out.

He said, “First of all, the name ‘Mankad’ is incorrect. This was a run-out. I listened to the third umpire’s commentary. He said that the bowler had crossed the popping crease. What happened was, in his final bowling stride, he was still within the crease and his hand never actually went up to release the ball. That’s his opinion, but I felt that maybe it was actually out. That’s a different matter. After the not out decision, I also saw Rishabh Pant withdrawing the appeal, maybe. So this whole incident happened one after the other.

But according to the law, since he dislodged the bails before the release point, like how Ashwin had done in a run-out incident a few years ago, for a moment I thought the batter was out. But of course, we respect the third umpire’s opinion. He said the bowler had crossed the popping crease. He said he was past the popping crease, even though he was still in his bowling stride. But if Rishabh Pant had withdrawn the appeal, the umpire would have accepted that and the batsman would have remained not out. That’s a normal practice at this level. Many players withdraw appeals even after initially appealing.

The problem is, the umpire cannot ask the player whether they want to withdraw after the referral has been made. It has to be done before that. Because once the appeal goes upstairs, it’s out of the on-field umpire’s hands. Michael Gough had asked the bowler Rathi whether he was appealing. He said yes, and then they referred it upstairs.”

Swastik chikara asking Kohli for photo
Virat : Dimag khata rhta hai hamesha 😂🤣 pic.twitter.com/STH0nIC5YR

— RCBXTRA (@RCBXTRAOFFICIA) May 28, 2025

pic.twitter.com/CV0Xt7pSdK

— Birdman (@kingbirdman22) May 29, 2025