Rishabh Pant Receives Demerit Point for Dissent Towards Umpires

India wicketkeeper Rishabh Pant was shown a demerit point as 27-year-old PERSI WICKET. Yet he was recently fined for showing dissent towards the umpires in his first Test match against England at Headingley. The incident occurred during the 61st over of England’s first innings on day three of the Test match. To Pant’s tremendous credit, in that instance, he ignited a passionate debate with on-field umpires Paul Reiffel and Chris Gaffaney regarding the state of the match ball.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) deemed Pant’s behaviour as a level one offence. This decision complies with article 2.8 of its CoC. Pant pleaded guilty to the offence and agreed to accept the sanction levelled by match referee Richie Richardson. Since this was his first offence in a 24-month span, no official FS hearing had to take place.

“One demerit point has been added to Pant’s disciplinary record, for whom it was the first offence in a 24-month period.” – ICC

Getting just one demerit point is serious business because if points are built up the driver will face harsher penalties. With two suspension points you would be banned from participating in one Test match. Or you might only be suspended from two ODIs or two T20Is. If a player earns four or more demerit points over a two-year period, those demerit points will convert to suspension points. This change results in automatic suspension from competition.

Despite getting a red card in the semifinal match, Pant turned in an incredible effort on the pitch. He became the second batter in history to score a century in both innings at Headingley. He went on to become the second wicketkeeper to accomplish this as a Test match milestone. This milestone is a testament to his skill and talent on the field.

Harry Brook and Ben Stokes were the batsmen at the crease when the incident took place. At the same time, Pant engaged in conversation with the umpires to raise concerns about the ball’s condition. Instead this exchange was the basis for the disciplinary action taken against him.