KL Rahul's controversial dismissal: A storm brews in IND vs AUS 1st Test

The opening Test between India and Australia erupted in controversy when KL Rahul's caught-behind dismissal sparked debates among players, commentators, and cricket enthusiasts alike. The decision, made by the third umpire, overturned the on-field not-out call and left the cricketing world divided.  Check IND vs AUS 1st Test Day 2 LIVE SCORE AND MATCH UPDATES HERE 

 

Drama unfolds before lunch

 

With ten minutes left before the lunch break, Indian opener KL Rahul found himself at the centre of a contentious decision. Batting steadily at 26 off 74 balls, Rahul was adjudged not out by on-field umpire Richard Kettleborough after an appeal from the Australian side. However, the home team challenged the decision using the Decision Review System (DRS). 

 

 

Third umpire Richard Illingworth overturned the not-out verdict despite the absence of a split-screen view—a critical tool that could have clarified whether the ball grazed Rahul's bat or if the spike on Snicko resulted from contact between bat and pad. Frustrated, Rahul walked back to the pavilion, shaking his head, leaving India precariously placed at 51 for 4. 

"His pad and bat are not together at that point in time as the ball passes.  "It's (bat hitting pad) after, in fact, the ball passes the edge. Does Snicko pick up the sound of the bat hitting the pad?  "We're assuming (Snicko) may be the outside edge of the bat but that may not… pic.twitter.com/hvG0AF9rdo

— 7Cricket (@7Cricket) November 22, 2024

 

Voices of dissent: Shastri, Hussey, and more

 

Former India head coach Ravi Shastri expressed doubts over the decision, stating there was insufficient evidence to overturn the on-field call. Speaking on Fox Cricket, Shastri remarked, "Did I see enough there for me to be convinced? I didn't see enough, to be honest."

 

Echoing his sentiment, former Australian batter Michael Hussey also labelled the decision "controversial". He highlighted the ambiguity in Snicko’s spike, asking, "Was the spike coming from the ball hitting the bat, or was it the bat hitting his pad?"

 

Hussey further noted that the timing of the sound raised questions, leaving room for doubt. "There’s got to be some doubt there in my mind," he said.

 

Hayden and Waugh join the debate

 

Former Australia opener Matthew Hayden added to the controversy, questioning whether Snicko had accurately picked up the sound of the ball edging Rahul's bat. "His pad and bat are not together at that point in time as the ball passes," Hayden explained, arguing that the sound could easily have been the bat hitting the pad.

 

Australia batting legend Mark Waugh criticised the boldness of the decision. "That's a very brave decision given the evidence that we've seen there. Unfortunately, KL Rahul's got to cop it sweet."

 

Former players slam poor use of technology

 

Indian cricketing greats like Wasim Jaffer and Irfan Pathan did not hold back their criticism. Jaffer pointed out discrepancies in the process, tweeting, "Third umpire asked for another angle which wasn’t provided. If he wasn’t sure, why did he overturn the on-field not-out call? Poor use of technology and proper protocol not followed."

 

Pathan echoed this sentiment on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter), writing, "If it’s not clear, don’t give it out!"

 

Taufel weighs in on the third umpire’s call

 

Simon Taufel, a former International Cricket Council elite umpire, suggested that the decision might have been premature. He observed that the side-on shot showed a spike on Snicko with the bat away from the pad. "Rolling that through in its natural course, you may have seen that second spike come through had it been rolled all the way," Taufel stated, implying that the full sequence might have shown the bat hitting the pad later.

 

Rahul left to rue his luck

 

For KL Rahul, the decision was a bitter pill to swallow. Walking off with visible frustration, he became yet another player caught in the crossfire of DRS controversies. While opinions remain divided, the incident has reignited debates about the reliability of cricket’s decision-review systems and the protocols governing them.