Starting at Eden Gardens, Kolkata, the 2025 Indian Premier League (IPL) began with a fantastic opening celebration followed by a heated game between Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) and Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB). Particularly with their home advantage, defending champions KKR under Ajinkya Rahane were projected to rule. Still, RCB gave a great show to kick off their campaign on a high note.

Forming vital alliances with Phil Salt (56) and Rajat Patidar (34), Virat Kohli led the charge with an unbeaten 59 to assist RCB easily chase 175 runs with seven wickets in hand and nearly four overs left. KKR struggled with 174/8 before earlier disciplined RCB bowling front led by Krunal Pandya (2/39) and Josh Hazlewood (2/22) kept them under wraps.

Related News

Beyond the outcome, though, one point in the match appealed to everyone—Sunil Narine struck his own stumps but was not given out. Many were confused by the judgment and so talks on the ‘Hit Wicket’ rule erupted. Below is a thorough analysis of how the West Indian all-rounder survived even after shattering the stumps with his bat.

What did Sunil Narine’s ‘Hit Wicket’ Incident entail?

Sunil Narine was facing Rasikh Dar Salam during the eighth over of KKR’s innings; he delivered short-pitched ball that umpires judged wide. Narine responded to the delivery; his bat struck the wicket, knocks the bails off.

Seeing the stumps were broken, the RCB fielders appealed gently for ‘Hit Wicket,’ hoping Narine would be dismissed. Still, the on-field umpires hardly reacted to the appeal, so he kept on batting.

Many fans and experts were quite puzzled as to why Narine was not ejected even if he hit the stumps with his bat, thus result is much uncertainty among fans and commentators.

Knowing the ‘Hit Wicket’ Rule – Why Was Narine Not Out?

MCC Law 35.2, which sets the circumstances under which a batsman is considered out ‘Hit Wicket,’ was behind the choice not to award Narine out.

A batsman will not be declared out under Law 35.2 if the contact with the stumps takes place after finishing any part of receiving the delivery, except in defined circumstances set under Law 35.1.1.2 to 35.1.1.4 according to it.

These are the exceptions whereby hit wicket can be given out.

  • Law 35.1.1.2: If the batter sets off for the first run immediately after playing or attempting to play the ball.

  • Law 35.1.1.3: If the batter does not attempt to play the ball but sets off for a run, and in the umpire’s opinion, it happens immediately after they had the opportunity to play the ball.

  • Law 35.1.1.4: If the batter makes a second or further stroke to guard their wicket, under Law 34.3 (Ball lawfully struck more than once).

Narine’s underhit wicket ruling did not apply since he did not try a run after the delivery and his contact with the stumps was after the ball was dead.

What made the ball be seen as dead?

The ball had been determined dead prior Narine hitting the stumps, so this was a major cause he was not dismissed.

The ball was no longer in play once the delivery landed safely in the wicketkeeper’s gloves with no real effort from Narine to play a shot or take a run. Live play did not include anything happening after this point, including Narine inadvertently breaking the stumps.

Thus, the umpires rejected RCB‘s appeal right away on the grounds that Narine’s hitting of the stumps had no bearing on the live game scenario.

Former hit wicket fgotten in cricket

Although Narine’s situation was unique, past hit wicket dismissals have also caused ambiguity. Some outstanding examples are:

  • Misbah-ul-Haq (2007 T20 World Cup Final) – The Pakistan captain was dismissed ‘Hit Wicket’ against India while trying to scoop a delivery.

  • Inzamam-ul-Haq (Multiple Times) – The former Pakistan batter was involved in several comical ‘Hit Wicket’ dismissals, including one where he lost balance and fell on his stumps.

  • David Warner (BBL 2013-14) – Warner was given out after accidentally dragging his bat into the stumps while attempting a pull shot.

Still, in contrast to these instances, Narine’s case was unusual in that his action of dislodging the bails took place after the ball had been declared dead, thereby rendering his dismissal inapplicable under the rules.

In essence, the umpires’ call was correct.

Though Narine’s incident might have initially seemed to be a cut-and-dry case of ‘Hit Wicket,’ the MCC rules offered a logical reason for his not having been out. He was right to be permitted to keep batting since his bat contacted the stumps after the ball was dead and he did not run.

In instances when dismissals appear clear but are actually more intricate after closer evaluation, the ruling emphasizes the need of understanding the laws of cricket.

Narine and KKR will for the present go beyond this unusual moment, but the incident offers yet another reminder of how complicated cricket’s rules can be—even for experienced fans and players.