|
|
by IANS |
Perth, Nov 22 (IANS) India opener KL Rahul's dismissal on the first day of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy Test in Perth has ignited a heated debate over the usage of the Decision Review System (DRS) as former India cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar questioned 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.
Rahul, who had displayed immense patience in his 74-ball innings of 26, was adjudged caught behind off Mitchell Starc after Australia opted for a review. On-field umpire Richard Kettleborough had initially given him not out. However, third umpire Richard Illingworth overturned the decision based on Snicko, which showed a spike as the ball passed Rahul's bat.
Rahul, visibly frustrated, walked off shaking his head, indicating that the noise was caused by the bat hitting the pad, not the ball. This dismissal left the Indian camp and fans questioning the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence used to make such a critical call.
Speaking on Star Sports, former Indian cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar criticised the decision-making process and the quality of evidence provided to the TV umpire.
"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 explained that Snicko should have shown two distinct spikes if the ball had edged the bat 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 had immediate ramifications for India, who found themselves under pressure on a difficult batting surface. Losing Rahul, one of their most experienced players, added to their woes. Beyond the match, the incident has reignited discussions about the adequacy and consistency of DRS protocols in international cricket.
Latest News