Hyderabad Cricket Faces Fresh Credibility Test as Club Alleges Umpire Bias in T20 Semi-final

Special Correspondent

Hyderabad’s domestic cricket ecosystem, once admired for its discipline, technical excellence and institutional integrity, has been pushed into fresh controversy following a formal complaint by Balaaji Cricket Club to the Hyderabad Cricket Association’s (HCA) supervisory committee, headed by former High Court judge Justice Naveen Rao.

In its detailed representation, Balaaji CC has alleged unprecedented and arbitrary umpiring decisions during its A-Division T20 semi-final against Deccan Wanderers at the AOC Grounds on December 20, 2025, claiming that the outcome of the match was unfairly influenced through the imposition of penalty runs that find no sanction under established cricketing laws.

According to the complaint, Deccan Wanderers batted first and scored 159 runs in the stipulated 20 overs. However, at the conclusion of the innings, the on-field umpires allegedly imposed a 15-run penalty on Balaaji CC for an alleged slow over rate, revising the chase target to 175 runs. Balaaji CC has categorically stated that no such provision exists under BCCI playing conditions, ICC regulations, or in any recognised professional T20 format, including the Indian Premier League.

The club further pointed out that no official circular, notification or amendment introducing such a rule was ever communicated by the HCA—either through its official website or through the recognised WhatsApp channels used to disseminate playing conditions to A-Division teams.

Chasing the revised target under pressure, Balaaji CC eventually scored 158 runs—one short of the original target but well below the inflated figure—prompting the club to argue that, but for the additional penalty and the psychological impact it created, the outcome could have been different.

Significantly, Balaaji CC has drawn attention to a strikingly similar incident from the previous season involving Combined District XI and the same Deccan Wanderers. In that match, too, controversial penalty runs were imposed, triggering protests from combined district officials. After prolonged discussions, the penalty was eventually reversed and Combined District XI was declared the winner. The club has cited this episode as evidence of a troubling pattern rather than an isolated error.

The complaint further alleges that Deccan Wanderers is closely associated with a well-known and influential cricket power broker, whose reach, the club claims, has extended unchecked into multiple aspects of Hyderabad cricket—ranging from match officials to administration. Balaaji CC has alleged that such influence not only compromises match fairness but has also distorted selection processes, with academy players allegedly being pushed into various state teams – U-19 to U-23 to even state Ranji.

Adding to concerns, the club highlighted the absence of basic match infrastructure for a semi-final, including the lack of video coverage and even a sight screen, severely limiting transparency and avenues for review.

Balaaji CC also stated that upon enquiring with HCA’s umpire in charge, Mr. Shamsuddin, they were informed that while no such over-rate penalty exists under BCCI rules, certain association-level rules may have been framed, though it remained unclear whether these were formally approved or circulated.

Terming the incident “unheard of in world cricket,” the club has demanded a comprehensive and time-bound inquiry, accountability for officials involved, and decisive action against those allegedly manipulating the system. The representation also urges Justice Naveen Rao to crack down on what it describes as a rogue element damaging the reputation of the HCA, including directing the registration of criminal cases if corruption and manipulation are established.

The episode has once again reignited concerns over the erosion of governance standards in Hyderabad cricket. Whether the supervisory committee’s intervention can finally restore credibility remains to be seen, but the controversy underscores the urgent need for transparency, rule clarity, and institutional integrity in a system many believe is at a breaking point.