Last Updated:
Former international umpire Simon Taufel has explained the controversial incident, stating that third umpire Saikat made the right call.
Yashasvi Jaiswal was dismissed for 84 by Pat Cummins
Yashasvi Jaiswal looked determined to save the day for India after all big stars had fallen in the chase of 340. With an ineffective tail, the left-hander was required to anchor the innings for close to an hour and India would have drawn the Boxing Day Test. Unfortunately, he couldn’t accomplish his mission and the fourth Test slipped away from India’s hands. Australia registered a 184-run win and took a 2-1 lead in the ongoing Border-Gavaskar Trophy.
Jaiswal’s dismissal sparked an outrage in the Indian cricket fraternity as well as social media. The opening batter tried to hook Pat Cummins’ short-pitched delivery down the leg side. The 23-year-old was initially given not out by on-field umpire Joel Wilson after Australia appealed for a caught-behind dismissal. Cummins went for a DRS and there wasn’t any spike on the snicko. However, TV umpire Saikat Sharfuddoula ruled him out, citing that there was a visible deflection off Jaiswal’s gloves/bat.
The fans were dejected as Jaiswal was India’s last hope in the Test match. The incident left the India supporters at the MCG fuming as they chanted ‘cheater-cheater’ in unison.
Former international umpire Simon Taufel has explained the controversial incident, stating that Saikat made the right call.
“In my view the decision was out. The third umpire did make the correct decision in the end,” Simon Taufel told Channel 7.
The former ICC Elite Panel umpire said when there is a clear deflection off the bat then there is no need to check it from other technology to prove it right.
“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,” Taufel said.
“The clear deflection is conclusive evidence. 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,” he added.
- Location :
Melbourne, Australia
