Was Axar Patel's reversed wide legal? ICC rules explain the final-over call that helped India escape an upset

Axar Patel's reversed wide proved crucial in India's two-run win over Japan. Here's what ICC rules say about reverse sweeps and changing umpire calls.

India’s two-run victory over Japan turned on several fine margins, but none was more contentious than a delivery from Axar Patel that was initially called wide before being reversed after the Indian players questioned the decision. Alexander Shirai-Patmore had moved across the crease while attempting a reverse sweep when Axar’s delivery travelled down the leg side. Umpire Chris Thurgate first signalled a wide, prompting an immediate reaction from Axar and Sanju Samson, while India captain Shreyas Iyer became involved in the discussion. Thurgate consulted square-leg umpire Chris Brown and withdrew the original call, converting what had briefly been a wide into a legal dot ball.

Axar Patel was livid with the decision. (X Images)

The significance became obvious once Japan finished for 30 for three in pursuit of India’s 32 for four. The reversal did not merely remove a run from Japan’s total; it also meant that the delivery counted, denying the hosts the additional ball that would ordinarily accompany a wide.

What do ICC rules say about wides after a reverse sweep?

The playing conditions do not state that a batter forfeits the possibility of receiving a wide simply by attempting a reverse sweep or switch-hit. The central question is instead whether the delivery was sufficiently within the striker’s reach, taking into account both the batter’s original position and subsequent movement.

This distinction becomes particularly important when a batter moves substantially across the crease. Under the laws governing wides, an umpire should not call a delivery wide if the striker’s movement causes the ball to pass beyond him, or if that movement brings the delivery sufficiently within reach for a legitimate cricket stroke.

A reverse sweep therefore complicates what might otherwise appear to be an obvious leg-side wide. The umpire cannot judge the delivery exclusively by looking at where the ball eventually passes the batter; he must consider how far the striker moved and whether that movement materially altered the relationship between the batter and the ball.

That appears to have been the issue at the heart of India’s objection. Shirai-Patmore had moved across while setting himself for the reverse sweep, and the umpires were entitled to consider whether that movement meant Axar’s delivery should remain legal despite its eventual passage down the leg side.

Could the umpire legally reverse the decision?

Yes. ICC playing conditions permit an umpire to alter a decision provided the correction is made promptly, while the two on-field umpires are also entitled to consult one another when there is uncertainty over a call. The critical distinction is that the authority to reverse the decision belonged entirely to the umpires. Axar, Samson and Iyer could question the interpretation or draw attention to Shirai-Patmore’s movement.

Players are also not permitted unlimited licence to argue. Persistent protest, demonstrative dissent or prolonged attempts to influence an umpire can constitute misconduct, meaning there remains a clear boundary between seeking clarification and improperly pressuring an official. In this instance, however, the reversal itself was permissible under the playing conditions. What made it extraordinary was the consequence: Japan lost both a run and an additional delivery before ultimately losing the match by only two runs.

It would be impossible to claim that the call definitely decided the contest, because nobody can know what Japan might have done with an extra ball. Yet in a five-over match decided by such a narrow margin, a technical interpretation of batter movement and an umpire’s right to reconsider his decision became one of the most consequential moments of the afternoon.