Former Australian umpire Simon Taufel has justified the third umpire’s decision to dismiss Yashasvi Jaiswal during the Melbourne Test.
The former ICC Elite Committee referee told Channel 7: “The referee made the right decision. The 53-year-old referee said: “In my opinion, the decision was made. The third referee made the right decision. Even with the technology protocol, we look at the evidence and if the umpire believes the ball changed direction after hitting the bat, there is no need to use another form of technology to prove the case.
Toffel said: “Even a slight change in the direction of the ball is conclusive evidence. What we saw from the third official in this particular case was that he used technology as an aid. Whatever the reason, it was not reflected in the audio (snico) in this case.
Who is Simon Toffel? Simon Taufel is a former ICC Elite Panel Referee. This former Australian umpire has officiated 87 Test matches, 221 ODIs and 42 T20 international matches. He was born on January 21, 1971 in Leonards, Australia.
There was a controversy a day earlier, on Tuesday, December 30, there was a controversy over the third umpire’s decision on the wicket of Yashasvi Jaiswal during the Melbourne Test. In fact, on the final day of the Melbourne Test, Australian captain Cummins called for a catch against Yashasvi on his own ball. The ground umpire did not give up, but Australia took the DRS and the third umpire declared Yashasvi out.
In DRS, the snico meter showed that the ball did not hit the bat and there was no sound. Despite this, the third umpire declared Yashasvi out based on a visual deviation. Yashasvi also questioned the ground umpire about this decision, but the decision was not changed.
The third umpire took this decision at a time when the Indian team was in danger of defeat and Yashasvi was leading the team by scoring 84 runs. After this decision, the Indian fans present on the ground brandished cheater-cheater slogans. The referee’s decision in 4 images
1. DRS was caught on Yashasvi’s shot
Yashasvi’s appeal was rejected by the ground umpire. Australia took the DRS.
2. No contact between ball and bat in the Snickometer
It was clear from the snickometer that the ball did not hit the bat. No technological evidence has been found.
3. Visual evidence shows the ball deflecting
The deflection of the ball, i.e. the change in direction, was visible in the visual evidence.
4. The field umpire announced the third umpire’s decision
Television referee Sharfudullah announced the withdrawal decision, which was communicated to the players by the on-field umpires.
Why the controversy surrounding the decision, understand in 5 questions/answers…
1. On what basis did the third umpire make the decision? Bangladesh umpire Sharafuddaula Saikat takes responsibility for the third umpiring. Two pieces of evidence were presented to him to make a decision. First Snico meter and second visual proof. Sharafudullah did not see any contact between the ball and the bat in the Snico counter, as no sound was emitted, but based on the proximity and deflection of the ball by the gloves, the umpire said Yashasvi eliminated.
2. Why did Gavaskar call the decision wrong? Sunil Gavaskar, who was commentating on the match, said: “You are using technology to make the decision. It was clearly visible on the snickometer that she was not out. It is a completely wrong decision. You have made a decision under pressure in a very stressful situation.” The referee found no definitive proof that Yashasvi was out, so it is completely wrong to take him out.
3. What do the ICC rules say?
According to ICC Cricket Rule 31.6, the ‘benefit of the doubt’ must always be given to the batsman, meaning that if an umpire is unsure about the decision to dismiss him, he must rule that the batsman does not is “not eliminated”. This is because the batsman only has one chance to play an innings and must not be dropped on a minor decision. According to ICC rules, the decision of the field umpire during DRS also plays an important role. If the on-field umpire has declared it not out, this is also taken into account when making the decision. If the referee has ruled himself out, he also plays a role in the third referee’s decision. In LBW decisions, during DRS, only the referee’s call decides the decision.
4. Why is there no basis in Rahul’s decision but not in Yashasvi’s?
There was also a dispute regarding the wicket in the first match of the series. In the first match, there was controversy over KL Rahul’s dismissal during India’s first innings. Starc bowled the second ball of the 23rd over, which Rahul tried to defend. The ball went close from his bat into the hands of wicketkeeper Alex Carey. The entire Australian team appealed, but the referee did not relent. When the replay was shown in the review, the gap between bat and ball was clearly visible from the rear camera angle, but the movement was still displayed in the snicko-meter. Despite this, the third umpire declared KL Rahul out. The third referee made this decision on the basis of the snico-meter. After the third umpire’s decision on Yashasvi in the fourth Test, commentators Jatin Sapru, Irfan Pathan and Sunil Gavaskar raised the question: If snico was the basis of Rahul’s decision, then Yashasvi Why did the Snickometer technology- Was it ignored in the decision? Why was this double attitude adopted?
In the first Test, KL Rahul was caught on Starc’s ball. The third umpire made this decision.
5. How did India lose the Test after Yashasvi’s wicket? Yashasvi was eliminated in the 71st minute. The Indian team’s score was 140 runs for 7 wickets. India were all out for 155 runs in the next 8 overs. The Indian team lost the Melbourne Test. There are 5 test matches to be played in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. After 4 tests, Australia leads the series 2-1.
The reason for India’s defeat was the poor performance of the top-order batsmen. Apart from Yashasvi, the top three batsmen Rohit Sharma (9), KL Rahul (0) and Virat Kohli (5) could not reach double figures. A poor shot from Rishabh Pant also became a turning point. Yashasvi saved the team from the initial shock by completing an 88-run partnership with Rishabh Pant, but Pant lost his wicket by playing a poor shot. Click for full match status…
Yashasvi’s wicket, disappointment, anger and celebration
1. Australians’ appeal following the capture of Yashasvi
3. Yashasvi upset by third umpire’s decision
3. Australians celebrated after getting the wicket
4. Yashasvi Jaiswal returned to the pavilion disappointed
————————————————– —
Despite Test defeat, Bumrah-Reddy honored in Melbourne
Despite the big defeat in the Melbourne Test, Australia Cricket honored Jasprit Bumrah and Nitish Reddy. Bumrah and Nitish’s names were included in the honors board at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The BCCI on Tuesday released the video of Bumrah and Reddy’s names included in the honors board.