The decision to reverse the wide in tight, rain-affected chase caused intense controversy and discussion following India's victory over Japan.
I missed the match: What wide are you talking about?
The one-off T20I at Sano had been reduced to a five-over contest. Japan put on a spirited show, restricting two-time defending world champions India to 32-4. Then, with six to defend from four balls, left-arm spinner Axar Patel bowled around the wicket at the left-handed Alexander Shirai-Padmore.
The ball pitched on (or maybe slightly outside) the leg-stump. Shirai-Padmore tried to play a switch-hit but missed. Umpire Chris Thurgate ruled a wide.
Axar protested, as did wicketkeeper Sanju Samson. Soon, captain Shreyas Iyer walked up to have a word with square-leg umpire Chris Brown of New Zealand, a member of the ICC’s Elite Panel. The two umpires conferred (there was no TV umpire). Thurgate overturned the decision.
India won the match by two runs, with that call a crucial factor. Had the decision not been reversed, Japan would have needed five off four balls. Instead, they needed six off three.
— Ben Gardner (@Ben_Wisden) September 22, 2026
WDYM an umpire reversed a decision? Isn’t the umpire’s decision final?
Yes, they can. Law 2.12 of cricket does have that provision: “An umpire may alter any decision provided that such alteration is made promptly and does not contradict Law 20.6 (Dead ball not to be revoked). This apart, an umpire’s decision, once made, is final.”
Doesn’t the ICC penalise cricketers for showing dissent towards umpires?
Article 2.8 of the ICC Playing Conditions sets a Level 1 or 2 penalty for (among other things), “excessive, obvious disappointment with an Umpire’s decision” and “arguing or entering into a prolonged discussion with the Umpire about his/her decision.”
As the phrasing suggests, these things are subjective. If the match referee feels Axar, Samson, or Iyer crossed a line, he will penalise them. If he does not, he will not.
But... was it the correct decision?
Under normal circumstances, a ball that passes by a batter’s leg-side is adjudged a wide. However, that rule is not applicable when a batter attempts a switch hit, which Shirai-Padmore did in this case.
In 2024, former ICC panel umpire Anil Chaudhary said that if a batter attempted a switch hit, the umpires were expected to treat both sides as the off-side. In other words, the bowler had more margin for error while bowling down the leg side.
But at what specific point does the umpire take that decision? Law 36.3 states: “The off side of the striker’s wicket shall be determined by the striker’s batting position at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery.”
When does the ball come into play for the delivery? Law 20.5 states: “The ball ceases to be dead – that is, it comes into play – when the bowler starts his/her run-up or, if there is no run-up, starts his/her bowling action.”
Shirai-Padmore had not switched his stance when Axar began his run-up. His off-side thus remained his off-side as per Law 36.3. While that is true, it may be entirely possible that the ICC uses different definitions of the off-side for the LBW (which is what Law 36 is about) and the wide.
However, in 2025, the ICC introduced a six-month trial rule for wide ball in ODIs and T20Is. It ran: “The position of the batter’s legs at the point of delivery will now be used as the reference point for a wide, even if the batter subsequently moves across to the off side ... Any leg side delivery that passes behind the batter’s legs and outside of the line at the time the ball reaches the popping crease may still be called a Wide.”
The last line should make it a wide. However, that rule is not listed in the official T20I playing conditions that are in place currently.
Deepak Malik/Creimas for BCCI
Follow Wisden for all cricket updates, including and more. Stay up to date with the .