Last Updated:
Yashasvi Jaiswal was adjudged caught-behind in controversial fashion during the fifth day of the 4th Test when he was batting on 84.
Yashasvi Jaiswal reacts after being dismissed. (AP Photo)
Yashasvi Jaiswal’s dismissal during the fifth day of the fourth Test between India and Australia has been hotly debated and is expected to polarise opinions. Jaiswal, batting on 84, was adjudged to have gloved a bouncer from Scott Boland to wicketkeeper Alex Carey by the TV Umpire despite the Real Time Snicko (RTS) not showing any deflection.
To the naked eye, the ball seemed to have changed its trajectory as Jaiswal went for the ill-fated pull shot with India 140/6 in chase of 340 at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The on-field umpire gave it as not out before Australians opted to review it.
TV umpire Sharfuddoula Saikat took his time while watching the replays from different angles before employing snicko. To the surprise of Jaiswal and Indian fans present at the venue, the on-field umpire was asked to overturn his initial decision.
A disgruntled Jaiswal had a brief chat with the two on-field umpires – Joel Wilson, Michael Gough – before walking off the field.
Jaiswal was the last recognised batter on which rested India’s shrinking hopes of a draw. However, his dismissal hastened the collapse as Australia went on to win by 184 runs to take 2-1 lead in the five-match series with a Test to go.
Warren Brennan, the owner of company that invented Hot Spot, said the gentle contact between the ball and Jaiswal’s bat meant snicko failed to pick up any noise.
“That was one of the glance-shots where there isn’t any noise so Snicko shows nothing only ambient noise. I checked with the audio director and he said there was no noise either. Probably only Hot Spot could have resolved that one,” Brennan was quoted as saying by Code Sports.
Former international umpire Simon Taufel though feels that a correct decision was made.
“In my view the decision was out. The third umpire did make the correct decision in the end. With the technology protocols, we do have a hierarchy of redundancy and when the umpire sees a clear deflection off the bat there is no need to go any further and use any other form of technology to prove the case. The clear deflection is conclusive evidence,” Taufel said on Channel 7.
“In this particular case what we have seen from the third umpire, is they’ve used a secondary form of technology, which for whatever reason hasn’t shown the same conclusive evidence of audio to back up the clear deflection. In the end the third umpire did the right thing and went back to the clear deflection and overturned the umpire field. So, in my view correct decision made,” he added.
- Location :
Melbourne (Australia)
