Australia clinched a dominant 2-1 advantage in the five-match Border Gavaskar Trophy following their victory over India by 184 runs in the fourth Test in Melbourne. Although it was a difficult defeat for India, Jasprit Bumrah’s impressive nine-wicket haul emerged as a significant individual achievement, and young opener Yashasvi Jaiswal’s courageous 84 off 208 balls in the second innings indicated that Indian cricket possesses a promising future ahead.
Nonetheless, controversy erupted when Jaiswal was ruled out caught behind off Pat Cummins’ bowling. On-field umpire Joel Wilson first decided Jaiswal was not out after Australia’s appeal for a caught-behind dismissal. However, Australian captain Pat Cummins swiftly utilized the Decision Review System (DRS) to contest the on-field ruling.
The third umpire, Saikat Sharfuddoula, examined the available evidence. Even though the Snickometer indicated no spike as the ball went past Jaiswal’s bat and gloves, the television umpire depended on visual proof of a slight deflection from Jaiswal’s right index finger and an assumed change in the ball’s direction. On this basis, Sharfuddoula reversed the on-field ruling, declaring Jaiswal out.
The ruling incited considerable anger, with even cricket icon Sunil Gavaskar stating that if technology is accessible, it ought to be trusted. However, a new video released by the Australian media outlet 7 Cricket has sparked speculation that Jaiswal might have recognized he was out even before the DRS dispute unfolded. In the video, it captures Australia’s Travis Head talking with Jaiswal after the DRS was employed and then immediately celebrating.
Jaiswal’s childhood coach, Jwala Singh, who was at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, believes that despite the apparent deflection, the batter should have received the benefit of the doubt. “I was at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, so it was challenging to comprehend what precisely happened. Initially, the on-field umpire ruled it not out, and then the decision went for review. From what I gathered later, Snicko didn’t reveal anything, and the ball seemed to go close to the bat.
“If we utilize technology, it should be infallible and properly applied. Based on the technology, it didn’t appear that the ball touched the bat. However, if it is an optical illusion or not clear on Snicko, I think this was somewhat of a contentious decision—no doubt about that. ”
Singh also recalled hearing Rohit Sharma suggest that Jaiswal had indeed made contact with the bat. “If that’s accurate, it introduces another layer of controversy to this ruling. In cricket, such decisions can be extremely intricate. But the doubt should always be granted to the batter, so I believe Yashasvi should have been provided the benefit of the doubt,” Singh conveyed to IANS.
