“Slight changes in the direction of the ball could be an ‘optical illusion’,” Gavaskar told the host broadcaster. Why have you kept the technique? If technology is there, it should be used. “You can’t make decisions based on what you see and ignore technology.”
Former ICC Elite Panel umpire Simon Taufel told ‘Channel 7’, “In my view the decision was out. The third umpire took the right decision.
He said, “Even with the technology protocol, we look at the evidence and if the umpire believes that the direction of the ball has changed after hitting the bat, then there is no need to use any other form of technology to prove the case.” Is.”
“Even a slight change in the direction of the ball is conclusive evidence,” he said. What we have seen from the third umpire in this particular case is that he used technology as an aid. For whatever reason, this was not reflected in the audio (snico) in this case.”
“In the end, the third umpire did the right thing and overturned the on-field umpire’s decision on the basis of a clear ‘deflection’. So in my opinion the right decision was taken.
The incident follows a similar controversy in the opening Test in Perth, where an argument broke out over the dismissal of opener Lokesh Rahul.
After Australia’s appeal, on-field umpire Richard Kettleborough ruled in Rahul’s favour, the home team used DRS to challenge the decision.
Third umpire Richard Illingworth overturned the on-field umpire’s decision despite not having the benefit of ‘split-screen view’. The ‘split-screen view’ would have given them a clearer picture of whether Mitchell Starc’s ball had actually touched the bat or whether the sound of the snicker had come from the ball hitting the pad.
Graphics Source: NavJivanIndia | VaskarAssets