England’s Lord’s Over Rate Controversy: Why ICC Penalized England and Not India in England vs India 3rd Test

In the high-stakes England vs India 3rd Test at Lord’s, the on-field drama wasn’t limited to bat and ball. Following the match, the ICC slapped England with a two-point penalty in the World Test Championship standings for a slow over rate, stirring controversy and sparking debates about fairness, regulations, and consistency. Critics, including former England captain Michael Vaughan, questioned why only England faced sanctions, especially when India, too, had their share of stoppages and on-field delays. So, what do the ICC’s official regulations say? And was England really at fault?

England Penalized, India Spared: What Happened at Lord’s?

On July 16, the International Cricket Council (ICC) confirmed that England had been docked two WTC points for being two overs short of the required rate during the second Test at Lord’s against India. Additionally, they were fined 40% of their match fee.

The decision immediately drew backlash online. Fans and pundits pointed out that India’s batters, especially Rishabh Pant, who required multiple on-field treatments after injuring his finger, were partly responsible for the time loss. On top of that, India captain Shubman Gill received a lengthy massage from the team physio while fielding, further eating into the clock.

“If both teams were wasting time, why penalize only one?“ asked many, echoing Vaughan’s sentiment.

ICC Over Rate Rules: What Do the Regulations Say?

Per Article 12.9.3 of the ICC’s WTC 2025–27 playing conditions, several allowances are made before deciding on over rate penalties:

This essentially means England could not claim allowances for delays caused by India’s injured players receiving medical aid or being slow between overs. Nor would the time taken for Shubman Gill’s massage or Pant’s injury breaks be counted against India’s over rate while they were bowling.

Interestingly, both teams bowled each other out in under 80 overs in the second innings, meaning those phases didn’t factor into the over-rate calculation at all, per Article 12.9.4.

The Spin Factor: India’s Strategic Advantage

While both teams faced similar stoppages, the style of bowling played a critical role in the over rate differences. India employed spin bowlers for 42.1 overs, allowing quicker over turnover, compared to England’s 31.5 overs of spin. England’s pacers bowled 162.2 overs, which naturally takes more time, while India’s pacers bowled only 132.3 overs.

Though the difference between the teams was just two overs, it proved costly for England under strict ICC enforcement.

The ICC doesn’t make detailed over-rate calculations public, but time lost due to uncontrollable events is reportedly recorded in their internal system, forming the basis for such sanctions.

Vaughan Questions ICC’s Consistency

Former England captain Michael Vaughan didn’t mince words on social media, openly questioning why the ICC’s over-rate policy led to only England being penalized despite a match full of interruptions from both sides.

While the laws appear clear, Vaughan’s concern echoes a larger sentiment among fans and analysts: the lack of transparency in how exact deductions are calculated.

The England vs India Test at Lord’s was yet another reminder of how fine margins and interpretations of ICC laws can tilt the balance. While the rules were followed to the letter, the situation reignited discussions about whether the ICC should make over rate data public, especially in an era where WTC points are so crucial.

Read More: England Penalized WTC Points for Slow Over Rate After Thrilling Lord’s Win in England vs India 3rd Test

FAQs