Following Fakhar Zaman‘s ejection, former Pakistan captain Shahid Afridi publicly blasted the match officials at Sunday’s Asia Cup 2025
Super Four match between India and Pakistan in Dubai. Afridi questioned the third umpire’s credibility, pointing out that the decision was influenced by his desire to officiate in the Indian Premier League (IPL).
Fakhar Zaman, who had struck three boundaries in his knock of 15 off nine deliveries, was caught behind off Hardik Pandya during the third over of Pakistan’s innings. Sanju Samson, the Indian wicketkeeper, lunged forward to finish the catch, but replays suggested the ball may have bounced just short of his hands.
After reviewing the video, the third umpire made the decision. Only a few slow-motion perspectives were examined before the umpire decided in favour of India. On his way back to the pavilion, the opener was clearly irritated. The former all-rounder for Pakistan accused the decision-making process of being biassed.
“Unhone IPL me bhi toh umpiring karni hai [He has to umpire in the IPL too],” Afridi stated on Samaa TV.
The third umpire only looked at two angles; why? Shoaib Akhtar
Mohammad Yusuf, a former Pakistani batter who participated in the TV conversation, said that Fakhar’s termination was significant.
They didn’t even look at a lot of angles. In the opening over, Fakhar had struck three fours and easily dismissed Bumrah. For India, his wicket was vital,” Yusuf remarked.
Shoaib Akhtar, a pacer for Pakistan, too criticised the umpire’s call, asking why only two views were examined out of a total of 26 cameras.
“Fakhar was not absent. Why did the third umpire only evaluate two viewpoints out of the 26 available cameras? The contest might have changed if Fakhar had stayed,” he had stated.
According to reports, Naveed Akram Cheema, the manager of Pakistan’s squad, officially complained to the referee and umpires about the procedure that resulted in the southpaw’s termination. The Pakistani camp reportedly claimed that the third umpire’s scant evaluation unjustly favoured the fielding team and that there was insufficient, unambiguous evidence to support the ruling.
Home