IND vs NZ 1st ODI: Was there foul play with Hardik Pandya? Wasim Jaffer gave these three proofs on the controversial bold

IND vs NZ 1st ODI: Was there foul play with Hardik Pandya? Wasim Jaffer gave these three proofs on the controversial bold

Wasim Jaffer on Hardik Pandya’s Out: Controversy has arisen after Hardik Pandya was bowled in the Hyderabad ODI. It is being said that the decision to declare Hardik out was completely wrong.

A controversy has erupted over whether Indian team’s star all-rounder Hardik Pandya was bowled in the first ODI against New Zealand on Wednesday. Cricket fans and many former Indian players believe that the decision to dismiss Hardik was wrong. The name of former India batsman Wasim Jaffer has also been added to this list. Jaffer has put up to three proofs regarding Hardik’s not-out. He said that dishonesty has been done with the Indian player.

Let us tell you that Hardik scored 28 runs in 38 balls with the help of 3 fours at the Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium in Hyderabad, after which he was bowled in the 40th over by Daryl Mitchell. Hardik got the fourth ball of the over at the off stump line and tried to cut but there was no contact with the bat. The ball went into the gloves of wicket-keeper Tom Latham but then the bails fell. However, replays showed that the ball did not hit the stumps.

The third umpire did not check the angle of fall of the bails and Hardik had to return to the pavilion. Jaffer has mentioned three points on his official Twitter account, which show that Hardik was not bold. Jafar wrote, ‘1. The gap between the ball and the bails can be clearly seen. 2. The ball is in the gloves but the lights in the bails are not on. 3. After touching the gloves in the gills, the light lit up.

Significantly, apart from Jaffer, former Indian cricketers Mohammad Kaif and Mahesh Manjrekar also disagreed with the decision to bowl Hardik. Kaif and Manjrekar are part of the commentary panel. Kaif said that it was absolutely a wrong decision. Manjrekar said that haste should not have been shown in the decision.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *