IND vs AUS, Perth Test: KL Rahul's dismissal sparks debate, former players say 'when in doubt, don't give out'
By Sunita Iyer | First Published Nov 22, 2024, 12:46 PM ISTKL Rahul's controversial caught behind dismissal on Day 1 of the opening Test against Australia in Perth sparked a debate, with former players from both teams questioning the third umpire's decision to overturn the on-field umpire's not out call.
KL Rahul's controversial caught behind dismissal on Day 1 of the opening Test against Australia in Perth sparked a debate, with former players from both teams questioning the third umpire's decision to overturn the on-field umpire's not out call.
Initially, on-field umpire Richard Kettleborough ruled in Rahul's favor after Australia's appeal. However, the home team opted to review the decision using the DRS.
Latest Videos
Third umpire Richard Illingworth reversed the decision, despite lacking a split-screen view, which would have provided a clearer indication of whether the ball grazed the bat or if the snicko was responding to a hit on the pads.
The incident occurred just 10 minutes before lunch, with India ending the session at 51 for 4. Rahul, who had scored 26 off 74 balls, suggested that his bat made contact with the pad simultaneously as the ball passed the edge.
"His pad and bat are not together at that point in time as the ball passes.
"It's (bat hitting pad) after, in fact, the ball passes the edge. Does Snicko pick up the sound of the bat hitting the pad?
"We're assuming (Snicko) may be the outside edge of the bat but that may not… pic.twitter.com/hvG0AF9rdo
"I've got a spike when the ball passed his outside edge," Illingworth was heard saying while deciding on the DRS appeal.
Rahul shook his head in frustration as he walked off the field.
Former India head coach Ravi Shastri, who was commentating for Fox Cricket, stated that there was insufficient evidence for the third umpire to overturn the on-field umpire's not out decision.
"My initial reaction was, was there enough evidence there for the third umpire to overrule what was given. It was not out on the field of play. Did I see enough there for me to be convinced? I didn't see enough, to be honest," he said.
Former Australia batter Michael Hussey acknowledged on air that the third umpire's decision was a controversial one.
"That's controversial - there was a spike on the Snicko, but was the spike coming from the ball hitting the bat, or was it the bat hitting his pad?" Hussey asked while commentating for the same channel.
"You can see the bat just clipping the pad, so you've just got to get the timing right...there's got to be some doubt there in my mind."
According to Hussey, Rahul had every right to question the decision, saying: "I don't think you can be 100 per cent sure that the decision is correct."
"The disappointing thing is the technology's there to make sure you get the correct," he said.
Former Australia opener Matthew Hayden also believed that the spike in the snicko was not caused by the ball hitting the edge of Rahul's bat.
"His (Rahul's) pad and bat are not together at that point in time as the ball passes. It (bat hitting pad) is after, in fact, the ball passes the edge," Hayden said on air.
"Does Snicko pick up the sound of the bat hitting the pad? We're assuming (Snicko) may be the outside edge of the bat but that may not be the case."
Australia batting legend Mark Waugh added: "That's a very brave decision given the evidence that we've seen there; unfortunately KL Rahul’s got to cop it sweet … (he) won’t be happy with the way it's ended."
Former India players Wasim Jaffer and Irfan Pathan also believed that the third umpire made an error in his decision.
"Third umpire asked for another angle which wasn't provided. I'd assume he'd only ask for another angle if he wasn't sure. Then if he wasn't sure, why did he overturn the on field not out call? Poor use of technology and proper protocol not followed. KL hard done by," Jaffer wrote in a post on X.
Third umpire asked for another angle which wasn't provided. I'd assume he'd only ask for another angle if he wasn't sure. Then if he wasn't sure, why did he overturn the on field not out call? Poor use of technology and proper protocol not followed. KL hard done by.
— Wasim Jaffer (@WasimJaffer14)This is amazing, well done. Now please show the front on view of KL dismissal with snicko side by side please. I'll wait right here. https://t.co/dN5j4AZnGn
— Wasim Jaffer (@WasimJaffer14)"If it’s not clear don't give it out!" Pathan wrote on 'X'.
If it’s not clear don’t give it out!
— Irfan Pathan (@IrfanPathan)Former ICC elite umpire Simon Taufel also felt that Rahul was perhaps unlucky.
"We saw with that side on shot there was a spike on RTS with the bat away from the pad, in other words the bottom of the bat hadn't reached the pad," he was quoted as saying by '7Cricket'.
"Therefore rolling that through in its natural course, you may have seen that second spike (on Snicko, to indicate bat hitting pad) come through, had it been rolled all the way through," he added.
subscribe to Asianet Newsable WhatsApp channel by clicking here.