It has sparked an intense debate in the usage of the Decision Review System (DRS) after India opener KL Rahul was dismissed on the first day of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy Test in Perth, with former India cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar questioning the quality of technological support provided to the third umpire.
The incident occurred just before lunch, leaving India reeling at 47 for 4 after opting to bat on a challenging surface.
Patience personified Rahul was finally caught behind off Mitchell Starc after Australia chose to refer, with on-field umpire Richard Kettleborough having given him not out. Snicko showed a spike as the ball passed Rahul's bat, and third umpire Richard Illingworth overturned the decision. Rahul was dismissal at 26 in his 74-ball innings.
Rahul was visibly agitated as he walked off shaking his head, pointing towards the bat hitting the pad instead of the ball. Such a dismissal left not only the Indian camp but fans also questioning the reliability and sufficiency of evidence to make such a critical call.
Former Indian cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar speaking on Star Sports said that the process of decision-making is wrong while the quality of evidence handed over to the third umpire on TV is poor.
"First of all, disappointed with what was provided to the TV umpire," Manjrekar said on Star Sports. He should have got more evidence. Based on just a couple of angles, I don't think such an important decision in the match should have been made. My point is, with the naked eye there's only one certainty and that's the pad being hit by the bat. It's the only visual certainty we've got that with the naked eye. For everything else, you needed the aid of technology, which is Snicko.".
Manjrekar further clarified that Snicko would have indicated two different spikes if the ball had gone over the bat's edge before hitting the pad. "So ideally, if there was bat, as an edge to the ball, there should have been an earlier spike because clearly two events there, and the umpire obviously heard one noise. The visual certainty was bat hitting the pad. If that was the spike, then there wasn't an outside edge. If we were shown two spikes, then you could say the first one was the bat. So it was a poor supply of technology to TV umpire, and he should have said he can't nail it.
"If there weren't two spikes, they should have gone with the visual evidence which was bat hitting the pad. I think it was poor all around, and I don't blame the on-field umpire. You got to feel for KL Rahul, the amount of hard work that's been put opening the innings. And such a big moment personally for him when you look at his career and for India too. Travesty in a way."
Former India opener Wasim Jaffer also weighed in on the matter, taking to X (formerly Twitter) to express his concerns. “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.
The decision almost instantly meant pressure for India when batting on a tricky surface; losing Rahul- arguably one of their best batsmen- merely piled on the misery. Beyond the match itself, the incident has once again renewed debate over the adequacy and consistency of DRS protocols in international cricket.
Read also| From First to Last: Nadal Reflects on Davis Cup Losses as His Career Comes Full Circle
Read also| BGT 2024-25: Shastri Says First Two Matches Will Be Crucial for India
