"When In Doubt...": The Blunt Response of Australian Cricket Legends to the KL Rahul DRS Row

Michael Hussey, a former hitter for Australia, acknowledged on television that the third umpire's call was contentious.

Former players from both nations questioned the third umpire's decision to overturn the on-field official's not out judgment after India batter KL Rahul was controversially dismissed for being caught behind in the opening Test match against Australia. The home team used DRS to contest the ruling after on-field umpire Richard Kettleborough decided in Rahul's favor after Australia's appeal. Despite not having a split-screen view to help him determine if the Mitchell Starc delivery truly grazed the bat or if the snicko reacted to a hit on the pads, third umpire Richard Illingworth overruled the ruling.

Ten minutes prior to lunch, all of this occurred, and India ended the session at 51 for 4. Rahul, who scored 26 from 74 balls, said that when the ball passed the edge, his bat struck the pad simultaneously.

Illingworth was heard stating, "I've got a spike when the ball passed his outside edge," during the DRS appeal hearing.

Rahul left the field with a frustrated shake of his head.

Speaking on Fox Cricket, former India head coach Ravi Shastri stated that the third umpire lacked sufficient proof to reverse the on-field official's not-out ruling.

"At first, I wondered if there was sufficient evidence for the third umpire to disregard the ruling. It wasn't on the playing field. Was there enough there to persuade me? To be honest, I didn't see enough," he remarked.

Michael Hussey, a former hitter for Australia, acknowledged on television that the third umpire's call was contentious.

"That's controversial - 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?" While providing commentary for the same channel, Hussey posed the question.

"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." Rahul was perfectly entitled to challenge the ruling, Hussey said, adding, "I don't think you can be 100 per cent sure that the decision is correct." "The disappointing thing is the technology's there to make sure you get the correct," he stated.

Matthew Hayden, a former opener for Australia, also believed that Rahul's bat did not give the ball an edge, which is why the snicko spiked.

"As the ball passes, Rahul's pad and bat are separated at that moment. The hitting pad of the bat is really after the ball has passed the edge.

Does the sound of the bat striking the pad reach Snicko's ears? We think that Snicko might be the bat's outside edge, although that might not be the case. "That's a very brave decision given the evidence that we've seen there; unfortunately KL Rahul's got to cop it sweet … (he) won't be happy with the way it's ended," said Australia batting icon Mark Waugh. Irfan Pathan and Wasim Jaffer, two former Indian players, both thought the third umpire made a mistake in his call.

"The third umpire requested an additional viewpoint, but none was given. If he wasn't sure, I'd guess he would just ask for another viewpoint. So why did he reverse the on-field not-out call if he wasn't sure?Ineffective use of technology and appropriate procedure.

"If it's not clear don't give it out!" On 'X', Pathan wrote.

Simon Taufel, a former ICC top umpire, agreed that Rahul was somewhat unlucky.

"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," '7Cricket' reported him as saying.