South African player Heinrich Klaasen, playing in the IPL (IPL 2023), has been fined. Actually he no ball…
South African player Heinrich Klaasen, playing in the IPL (IPL 2023), has been fined. In fact, he had expressed his displeasure over not being given a no ball. He also criticized the behavior of the spectators in the Sunrisers Hyderabad vs Lucknow Super Giants match.
Heinrich Klaasen is currently playing for Sunrisers Hyderabad in the IPL. In Saturday’s match, he scored 47 runs off 29 balls, due to which the Hyderabad team could score 182 runs. However, Lucknow Super Giants won the thrilling encounter with 4 balls to spare. When Klaasen was batting, there was a lot of controversy on one ball. From the ground to social media, people were criticizing the decision. Klaasen spoke about this ball after his innings and expressed his displeasure with the umpire’s decision.
IPL 2023: What was the no ball controversy
Avesh Khan bowled a delivery that was too high on which the onfield umpire did not give a no ball. Sunrisers Hyderabad believed that it was a no ball, so they also took DRS on it. But even the third umpire did not give it a no ball. The ball was seen very high in the photo, after which the fans on social media were also criticizing this decision. Well, after the Sunrisers Hyderabad innings, Klaasen expressed his unhappiness in a conversation with the broadcasters.
“The crowd also disappointed, you don’t want to see that at your home ground. The umpire was also not good in the match. Let us tell you that the spectators sitting in the stadium threw a bottle in the dugout of Lucknow Super Giants. He was also raising slogans in the name of Virat Kohli, which was unbecoming behaviour. Due to this the match had to be stopped for some time. Klaasen said it had upset my rhythm.
Heinrich Klaasen fined
Klaasen committed an offense under level one of article 2.7, which he admitted. This is about inappropriate comments and criticism in public. Amit Mishra was also reprimanded for violating the code of conduct. He committed an offense under Level One of Article 2.2. He also accepted his mistake.