KL Rahul’s controversial decision was the talking point of the opening first session. KL Rahul (26), who anchored India’s innings controversially given out after a review caught behind off the bowling of Mitchell Starc on the stroke of lunch on Day 1 of the first Test match of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy in Perth
While the umpire didn’t give it out originally, it was overturned after a spike appeared on snicko, although Rahul felt that was from his bat hitting his pad. Indian opener walked back in absolute disbelief and had a chat with the on-field umpires before walking back to the hut.
“That’s controversial ,” former Australian batter Michael Hussey said on Fox Cricket commentary.
“There was a spike on the Snicko, but was the spike coming from the ball hitting the bat, or was it the bat hitting his pad?
KL Rahul couldn’t believe he was given! 🫨 #AUSvIND
Watch it here:https://t.co/3NsVsbfSMl
— cricket.com.au (@cricketcomau) November 22, 2024
“You can see the bat just clipping the pad, so you’ve just got to get the timing right … there’s got to be some doubt there in my mind.”
However, Tom Moody felt it was out. “I don’t think he had any choice other than to give it out,” Tom Moody said on ABC.
Former India cricketers Murali Vijay and Sanjay Manjrekar has called the dismissal “disappointing.”
“It was poor all round. I think the on-field umpires had made the correct call. There was no conclusive evidence,” said Manjrekar on Disney Hotstar.
Murali Vijay echoed Manjrekar’s sentiment, he said: “This was the best I have seen KL Rahul in the last six months.”
Former India coach Ravi Shastri too chipped in with his opinion on the dismissal.
“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
“My initial reaction was, was there enough evidence there for the third umpire to overrule what was given,” said Shastri on Fox Sports.
“It was not out on the field of play.
“Did I see enough there for me to be convinced?
“I didn’t see enough, to be honest.”
Former Australian bowler Kerry O’Keeffe shares the same sentiment as Shastri. He said: “I think he was unlucky. I think he brushed the pad with his bat. There’s no hot spot anymore, that would have shown it up,” he says.
“Rahul was disappointed, you tend to know.
“He threw his arms up in the air.
“The umpires decision is final.”
Matthew Hayden on 7Cricket too believes that KL Rahul was unlucky.
“His pad and bat are not together at that point in time as the ball passes,” said Hayden.
“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 be the case.”
Former umpire Simon Taufel on 7Cricket said: “”We saw with that side on shot there was a spike on RTS with the bat away from the pad, in other words the bottom of the bat hadn’t reached the pad.
“Therefore rolling that through in its natural course, you may have seen that second spike (on Snicko, to indicate bat hitting pad) come through, had it been rolled all the way through.”
