The Indian Premier League (IPL) 2025 season has already delivered its share of thrills, but few moments have sparked as much debate as the Super Over controversy in the Delhi Capitals (DC) versus Rajasthan Royals (RR) match. At the heart of the storm was a contentious backfoot no-ball call against Australian pacer Mitchell Starc, which ultimately influenced the outcome of a nail-biting encounter. The decision, made by the third umpire, has divided fans, analysts, and players alike, with some praising the adherence to the rules and others questioning the call’s fairness in such a high-stakes moment. So, was the umpire right in calling Starc’s backfoot no-ball? Let’s dive into the details of the incident, the relevant MCC Law, and the broader context to unpack this dramatic episode.
The Match and the Super Over
The DC vs RR clash in IPL 2025 was a high-octane affair, with both teams showcasing their batting firepower. Rajasthan Royals, led by Sanju Samson, posted a formidable total, thanks to aggressive contributions from Yashasvi Jaiswal and Riyan Parag. Delhi Capitals, bolstered by Jake Fraser-McGurk’s explosive start and Axar Patel’s steady leadership, matched RR’s intensity, leading to a tied game after 40 overs. With the match heading into a Super Over, tension was palpable at the stadium and among millions of viewers worldwide.
In the Super Over, Delhi Capitals opted to bowl first, entrusting their star pacer, Mitchell Starc, to restrict RR’s formidable batting lineup. Starc, acquired by DC for INR 11.75 crore in the IPL 2025 auction, was expected to deliver under pressure, given his stellar performances in high-stakes games, including a Player of the Match award in the IPL 2024 final with Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR). However, the Super Over took a dramatic turn when Starc’s first delivery was called a no-ball by the third umpire for a backfoot infringement.
The call sparked immediate controversy. RR capitalized on the extra delivery and the free hit, scoring crucial runs that tilted the Super Over in their favor. Despite Starc’s efforts to pull things back, including a brilliant final delivery that nearly clinched the game for DC, RR emerged victorious. Posts on X captured the polarized reactions, with some fans lauding Starc’s resilience and others questioning the umpire’s decision. One user noted, “Starc’s back foot was touching the return crease, which is why it was called a no-ball. Doesn’t matter though. Starc’s arm was in the right position to pull off a thrilling win for DC”.
Understanding MCC Law 21.5
To assess the umpire’s decision, we must refer to the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) Laws of Cricket, specifically Law 21.5, which governs no-balls related to the bowler’s footing. The law states that a delivery is a no-ball if “the bowler’s back foot is touching or crossing the return crease during the delivery stride.” This rule ensures that bowlers maintain proper positioning during their action, preventing unfair advantages such as bowling from an incorrect position.
In Starc’s case, replays showed his back foot grazing the return crease during his delivery stride. According to MCC Law 21.5, even a slight touch warrants a no-ball call, regardless of the bowler’s intent or the delivery’s outcome. The third umpire, after reviewing multiple angles, deemed the infringement clear enough to justify the call. A post on X reinforced this, stating, “Yes, it is a no-ball if the bowler’s back foot touches or crosses the return crease during delivery. So, there should be no controversy over the decision”
While the law is unambiguous, its application in a Super Over—a moment where every ball carries immense weight—amplified the scrutiny. Critics argued that such a marginal infringement, especially in a high-pressure scenario, should have been overlooked in favor of the game’s spirit. Others, however, emphasized that rules are absolute, and umpires must enforce them consistently, regardless of the situation.
Starc’s Performance and Context
Mitchell Starc’s IPL journey has been a rollercoaster. After a record-breaking INR 24.75 crore deal with KKR in 2024, he faced criticism for an underwhelming group stage, taking 17 wickets in 14 matches at an economy rate of 10.61. However, his playoff heroics, including a 3/34 in Qualifier 1 and 2/14 in the final, silenced doubters and justified his price tag. His move to Delhi Capitals in 2025 for INR 11.75 crore was seen as a bargain, given his ability to deliver in clutch moments, as evidenced by his first T20 five-wicket haul against Sunrisers Hyderabad earlier in the season.
In the Super Over against RR, Starc’s no-ball was a rare misstep in an otherwise disciplined performance. Despite the setback, he showcased his class by nearly turning the game in DC’s favor with precise yorkers and clever variations. His ability to remain composed under pressure was reminiscent of his 2024 playoff performances, highlighting why DC invested heavily in him. However, the no-ball call overshadowed his efforts, sparking debates about whether the umpire’s decision was overly pedantic.
Fan and Analyst Reactions
The controversy ignited heated discussions across social media and cricket circles. Fans on X were divided, with some applauding the umpire’s adherence to the rulebook and others decrying the call as a momentum-killer for DC. Analysts pointed out that backfoot no-balls are relatively rare in T20 cricket, where front-foot no-balls dominate discussions. The incident also drew comparisons to past IPL controversies, such as the 2019 no-ball incident involving Lasith Malinga, where umpires failed to spot an infringement, costing Royal Challengers Bangalore a crucial game.
Former players weighed in, with some defending the umpire’s call as a necessary enforcement of the law, while others felt the context of a Super Over warranted leniency. The debate underscored the fine balance between strict rule adherence and the spirit of the game, a recurring theme in cricket’s evolution as a fast-paced, entertainment-driven sport.
The Bigger Picture: Umpiring in High-Stakes Scenarios
The Starc no-ball incident raises broader questions about umpiring in high-pressure situations. The IPL, with its global audience and massive financial stakes, places immense scrutiny on officials. Technologies like DRS and third-umpire reviews ensure greater accuracy but also amplify controversies when marginal calls alter match outcomes. In this case, the third umpire’s reliance on clear visual evidence aligned with MCC Law 21.5, but the decision’s impact on the game’s result fueled discontent among DC fans.
The incident also highlights the challenges bowlers face in T20 cricket, where batters dominate and margins for error are slim. Starc himself acknowledged this after his five-wicket haul against SRH, stating, “There’s not many egos in bowlers in T20 cricket—you’re hanging on for dear life sometimes.” His adaptability and willingness to “think outside the box” have made him a valuable asset, but the no-ball call underscored the unforgiving nature of the format.
Was the Umpire Right?
From a technical standpoint, the umpire’s call was correct. MCC Law 21.5 leaves no room for ambiguity, and the evidence of Starc’s back foot touching the return crease justified the no-ball. However, the context—a Super Over in a tightly contested IPL match—adds complexity. Critics argue that such a marginal infringement, with minimal impact on the delivery’s fairness, should not decide a game’s outcome. Supporters of the call, however, stress that rules exist to ensure consistency, and bending them risks undermining the game’s integrity.
Ultimately, the controversy reflects the IPL’s ability to generate drama and debate, keeping fans engaged long after the final ball. While Starc’s no-ball cost DC the match, his resilience and skill ensured the game remained a spectacle. As the IPL 2025 season progresses, this incident will serve as a reminder of the fine margins that define T20 cricket and the enduring challenge of balancing rules with the spirit of the game.
