In the opening Test between India and Australia in Perth, KL Rahul was the focal point of debate: Former cricketer Michael Hussey went on questioning the third umpire’s reversal of the on-field umpire’s not out. At first, Richard Kettleborough on-field ruled it in Rahul’s favour, turning down an appeal for a caught behind by Australia. However, the home team went for a DRS review. And third umpire Richard Illingworth somehow overturned the decision – controversy was even more justified in this instance because he didn’t have the split-screen view that could have told whether the ball brushed the bat or whether snicko was reacting to a pad hit.

The choice was made just 10 minutes ahead of lunch, leaving India at 51 for 4 at the break. Rahul, who had faced 74 balls for his 26, maintained that his bat made contact with the pad simultaneously as the ball went past the edge. The lack of defined proof left the decision open to debate, starting a discussion about the role of technology and umpire discretion in such pivotal moments.

Michael Hussey On KL Rahul’s Dismissal

“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?” Hussey asked while commentating

“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.”

According to Hussey, KL Rahul had every right to question the decision: “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 said.