Jaiswal’s dismissal triggers significant uproar with “deflection” being a major point of contention on replays.
Jaiswal’s dismissal on a suspect caught behind will be a significant talking point as technology was once again the talking point.
When Jaiswal, who was batting at number 84, tried to hook a bouncer from Pat Cummins, wicketkeeper Alex Carey caught the ball. The Australians appealed, and on-field umpire Joel Wilson declared the ball not-out. Australia then looked into the ruling.
Regular replays revealed a significant deflection, however Snicko had a flat line as the ball passed the bat. Based on his observations of the deviation, third umpire Sharfuddoula reversed the ruling in favour of Australia. Before leaving, Jaiswal was observed conversing with the umpires. India’s last chance to save the Test was lost when he was dismissed. They lost by 184 runs after being left stumbling at 140 for 7 in a chase of 340.
“I don’t know what to make of that because the technology didn’t show anything, but with the naked eye it seemed like he did touch something,” Rohit Sharma told the press after the game. “I don’t know how the umpires want to use the technology, but in all fairness, I think he did touch the ball…
“It’s about the technology, which we know is not 100% – more often than not we are the ones falling on the wrong side of it… that’s where we are unfortunate.”
Cummins, meanwhile, was clear that Jaiswal had hit the ball and knew he had hit the ball.
“Think it was clear that he hit it, heard a noise, saw a deviation, so was absolutely certain that he hit it,” he said. “As soon as we referred, you saw him drop his head and basically acknowledge that he hit. On screen, you can see he hit it. Ultra Edge, don’t think anyone has complete confidence and didn’t really show much, but fortunately there was enough other evidence to show it was clearly out.”
Simon Taufel agreed with the third umpire, citing the deflection as “conclusive evidence” and stating that Sharfuddoula had every right to do what he believed to be right, just like Rohit, who also witnessed the deflection.
“In my view, the decision was out,” Taufel said on Channel 7. “The third umpire did make the correct decision in the end. With the technology protocols, we do have a hierarchy of redundancy and when the umpire sees a clear deflection off the bat there is no need to go any further and use any other form of technology to prove the case. The clear deflection is conclusive evidence.
“In this particular case, what we have seen from the third umpire is they have used a secondary form of technology, which for whatever reason hasn’t shown the same conclusive evidence of audio to back up the clear deflection. In the end, the third umpire did the right thing and went back to the clear deflection and overturned the umpire field. So, in my view correct decision made.”