Kartik Tyagi Bowls Two Beamers But Is Allowed to Finish the Final Over — LSG vs KKR, IPL 2026

Law 41.7 of the MCC Laws (Dangerous and Unfair Bowling) provides that if an umpire deems a no-ball delivery — which includes a full toss above waist height — to be dangerous, the bowler receives a warning on the first offence and is removed from the attack on the second. The removal is immediate and applies for the remainder of the innings. The umpire's judgment of "dangerous" is the dispositive element: the Law does not define a mechanical waist-height threshold as automatically dangerous; it requires the umpire to assess the risk of injury.

The distinction between a no-ball full toss (above waist but not dangerous) and a dangerous full toss was introduced to allow for deliveries that are technically above waist height but arrive at a pace, trajectory or from a hand position that does not genuinely threaten the batter. A slow, looping full toss that arrives above waist is a no-ball but may not be dangerous in the Law's intended sense; a fast, skidding full toss at throat height absolutely is. Tyagi, a medium-pace bowler, operated between these extremes on both deliveries.

The interpretation has been a source of umpiring controversy across T20 cricket for years. In the death overs, when a bowler loses control under pressure and bowls beamers, the on-field umpire's judgment of dangerousness is made in fractions of a second, with significant match consequences attached.

KKR had posted 155 and were defending under significant pressure in the death. Tyagi, who had bowled his earlier overs economically, was assigned the final over with 18 needed. LSG's lower order, aware of the required rate, was swinging freely. Himmat Singh was the striker. The context — a tight finish, a death bowler under pressure, a small ground — produced exactly the kind of delivery that generates beamers.

The final over of Lucknow Super Giants' 156-run chase against Kolkata Knight Riders at Ekana Stadium became one of the most chaotic overs in IPL 2026. With LSG needing 18 runs from the last six balls and Kartik Tyagi in the attack, the young KKR pacer sent down two consecutive waist-high full tosses at Himmat Singh. Both were called no-balls. The question — answered by the umpires in real time but disputed by almost everyone watching — was whether Tyagi should have been removed from the attack.

Under MCC Law 41.7, a bowler is to be immediately removed from the attack if they bowl a second no-ball in an over that the umpires judge to be dangerous. The critical word is "dangerous." The on-field umpires — having called both deliveries no-balls — judged that the first full toss was dangerous, but that the second, while above waist height, did not carry the same threat of injury to the striker. On that judgment, Tyagi was permitted to complete the over.

The practical consequences were significant. The first dangerous full toss to Himmat Singh: no-ball, free hit. The second no-ball full toss: Himmat attempted to loft the delivery and was caught by Rovman Powell at long-on — a dismissal that did not count because it was another no-ball. Tyagi then dismissed Himmat legitimately in the same over before, on the final ball, Mohammed Shami stepped up under pressure and hit a six that tied the match and forced a Super Over.

Ajinkya Rahane, the KKR captain, was visibly discussing options for a replacement bowler when the umpires indicated Tyagi would continue. The decision to allow Tyagi to bowl through drew immediate commentary from former players and former ICC umpires after the match. Former international umpire Ravi Shankar, speaking to a cricket broadcaster the following day, stated his opinion that the second delivery was also dangerous and that Tyagi should have been removed from the attack under the letter of Law 41.7. The umpires' in-the-moment judgment had gone the other way.

“The second ball was also dangerous. Two waist-high no-balls in the same over from the same bowler — he should have been removed. That is what the Law says.”

“I was looking for a replacement, but the umpires indicated he would continue. We accept the decision.”

KKR won the Super Over, making the on-field umpiring call a footnote in the immediate result. But the post-match analysis that followed was damaging for the officiating panel's credibility. Former ICC umpire Shankar's assessment — that the second delivery met the threshold of dangerous under Law 41.7 — was shared widely on social media.

Crucially, the incident sat within the same match as the Angkrish Raghuvanshi obstructing-the-field controversy. One match had produced IPL 2026's most disputed dismissal and its most disputed bowling-removal decision. A former ICC umpire publicly stated that Raghuvanshi should have been not-out and that Tyagi should have been off the attack — both calls going against the outcomes reached on the night. The match referee's report was scrutinised but no formal action was taken against the officiating panel.