Australia have taken an unassailable 2-1 lead in the five-match Border Gavaskar Trophy after a 184-run win over India in the fourth Test in Melbourne. While positives are hard to find after such a crushing loss, the tireless Jasprit Bumrah‘s nine-wicket haul will be remembered for a long time. The young opener Yashasvi Jaiswal‘s lone fight in the second innings where he scored 84 off 208 balls also showed that Indian cricket is in safe hands.
However, controversy happened when Yashasvi Jaiswal was given caught behind of the bowling of Pat Cummins. On-field umpire Joel Wilson initially ruled Jaiswal not out after Australia’s appeal for a caught-behind dismissal. However, Australian captain Pat Cummins immediately opted for the Decision Review System (DRS), challenging the on-field decision.
The third umpire, Saikat Sharfuddoula, reviewed the available evidence. While the Snickometer (Snicko) showed no spike as the ball passed Jaiswal’s bat and gloves, the television umpire relied on visual evidence of a slight deflection from the batter’s right index finger and a perceived change in the ball’s direction. Based on this, Sharfuddoula overturned the on-field call, declaring Jaiswal out.
The decision has led to huge furore with even the great Sunil Gavaskar saying that if there is technological help available, one should trust it. However, a new video released by Australia media house 7 Cricket, has led to the speculation that Jaiswal realised he was out even before the DRS row happened. In the video, it can be seen that Australia’s Travis Head is having a chat with Yashasvi Jaiswal after the DRS is taken, and then immediately starts celebrating.
Whatever conversation Jaiswal had with Head in between the appeal and DRS, Head came away from it thinking it was out #AUSvIND pic.twitter.com/FeMfqxlJtI
— 7Cricket (@7Cricket) December 30, 2024
Jaiswal’s childhood coach Jwala Singh, who was present at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, believes that despite a seeming deflection, the batter should have been given the benefit of the doubt. “I was at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, so it was hard to understand what exactly happened. Initially, the on-field umpire gave it not out, and then the decision was reviewed. From what I heard later, Snicko didn’t show anything and the ball seemed to pass close to the bat.
“If we use technology, it should be foolproof and properly used. According to the technology, it didn’t seem like the ball touched the bat. But then, if it’s an optical illusion or not clear on Snicko, I feel this was a bit of a controversial decision-no doubt about it.
Later, I heard Rohit Sharma mention that he had touched the bat. If that’s the case, it adds another layer of controversy to this decision. In cricket, such choices can be very tricky. But the doubt should always be given to the batter, so I believe Yashasvi should have been given the benefit of the doubt,” Singh told IANS.
Topics mentioned in this article
