“It’s about the technology, which we know is not 100%; most of the time we are the ones who fall on the wrong side… that’s where we are unlucky.”
Cummins, meanwhile, was clear that Jaiswal had hit the ball and knew he had hit it.
“I think it was clear that he hit it, he heard a noise, he saw a deflection, so he was absolutely sure that he hit it,” he said. “As soon as we mentioned, you saw him lower his head and basically acknowledge that he hit it. On the screen, you can see that he hit it. Ultra Edge, I don’t think anyone has complete confidence and it didn’t really show much, but fortunately, there was enough other evidence to show that it was clearly ruled out.”
“The optical illusion suggests that there is an advantage. This optical illusion also occurred here. If the technological evidence suggests that it has not been discovered, then it cannot be revealed.”
Sunil Gavaskar
“In my opinion, the decision was made,” Taufel said in channel 7. “The third umpire made the right decision in the end. With technological protocols, we have a hierarchy of redundancy and when the umpire sees a clear deviation of the bat there is no need to go further and use any other form of technology to prove the case. Clear deviation is conclusive evidence.
“In this particular case, what we have seen from the third referee is that they have used a secondary form of technology, which for some reason has not shown the same conclusive audio evidence to support the clear deviation. In the end, the third referee did the right thing and went back to the clear deviation and overruled the refs field. So, in my opinion, the right decision was made.
“We have seen so many times that the ball swings late after passing very close to the edge of the bat. We have seen it so many times, haven’t we, that the ball does not take the edge, but comes very close and swings later after to get to the seam,” he said. “From a distance it looks like the ball has taken advantage. I’m talking about forward defense, not this hook shot.
“The optical illusion suggests that there is an advantage. This optical illusion also occurred here. If the technological evidence suggests that it has not been discovered, then it cannot be revealed.”
In the live telecast on Star Sports, Mark Nicholas and Sanjay Manjrekar termed the decision as “brave” by the third umpire.
“On Jaiswal’s sending off, I think it is very brave of the third umpire to disallow Snicko,” Nicholas said. “I think that’s pretty weird too.”
Manjrekar said: “These are not the best angles, an angle was given which was straight on, and that is where you see the deviation when you see it visually, then you see the Snicko reconfirming everything. Any other referee would have gone “Well, if Snicko I won’t show it, and I love Snicko as a technology, I’m not going to reveal it. That would also be accepted by us.”
“I don’t know if any other umpire, I mean, my guess is that it runs on both the bat and the glove, that’s a total guess,” Nicholas added. “I think that’s the problem with watching that replay. Or any other replay.”
