Saikat Sharfuddoula, the third umpire from Bangladesh who ruled Yashasvi Jaiswal out on the final day of the Boxing Day Test on Monday, finds himself in the eye of the storm. Controversy erupted when, reacting to a DRS appeal from the Australian team, Saikat ruled Yashasvi caught behind in attempting a hook when on 84, even though the 'Snickometer' failed to register any edges.
The Indian opener looked distraught when on-field umpire Joel Wilson initially ruled him not out before changing his decision as per Saikat’s ruling. Those watching on TV saw a mild deviation after Jaiswal’s attempted shot which justified the appeal for a caught behind, but Snicko did not register an edge. The third umpire ruled it as a deflection off the gloves/bat on visual evidence, and hence ‘out.’
The ripples of the controversial dismissal could be felt strongly as the legendary Sunil Gavaskar felt the umpires ought to have gone by technology when it was available. ‘Yeh optical illusion hai (the deviation could be an optical illusion). For me, it’s not out and we should go by technology,’’ an animated Gavaskar told Star Sports.
BCCI speaks upBCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) vice-president Rajeev Shukla felt Jaiswal was clearly not out. ‘’Yashaswi jayaswal was clearly not out. Third umpire should have taken note of what technology was suggesting. While overruling field umpire, third umpire should have solid reasons. @BCCI @ICC @ybj_19,’’ he posted on his X-handle.
Meanwhile, a section of the Indian diaspora raised chants of "cheater, cheater" aimed at the match official but fortunately, the situation didn’t go out of hand. Jaiswal, meanwhile, could be cursing himself for unfortunate dismissals twice in the same Test after being run out owing to a horrible mix-up with Virat Kohli when on 82 in the first innings.
Backing the third umpire’s call, Australian Simon Taufel, a five-time ICC Umpire of the Year, told Channel 7: ‘’In my view, the decision was out. 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’ve 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,’’ he added.
Former Australia captain Ricky Ponting also felt the decision was clearly out. ‘’They can make of it what they like. That clearly hit the glove. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no argument whatsoever,’’ Ponting said during commentary.
The debate between human decision-making and technology has often resulted in controversial decisions in the sport — the most recent one being that of Indian batter K.L. Rahul during the Perth Test. The Snicko, on that occasion, had ruled an edge but the visual evidence suggested a gap between bat and ball.
