Sharafuddaula’s Controversial Decision on Jaiswal’s Dismissal: What They Said
Field umpire initially rejected Pat Cummins’ appeal for a caught-behind dismissal of Jaiswal. However, after Australia opted for a review, TV umpire Sharafuddaula Ibne Shahid overturned the decision based on replays. Despite no spike on the Snickometer to indicate contact with the bat or gloves, Sharafuddaula judged Jaiswal out, citing a change in the ball’s trajectory. This decision on the final day of the Boxing Day Test in Melbourne has sparked widespread debate. Here’s what various cricketing figures had to say:
Rohit Sharma, India Captain
“I’m not sure what to say. The technology didn’t show anything, but to the naked eye, it looked like he [Jaiswal] hit something (the bat). I don’t know how the umpires use the technology, but in fairness, I feel he nicked it. We know technology isn’t 100% accurate, but we’ve been unlucky with decisions like this.”
Pat Cummins, Australia Captain
“Jaiswal knew he nicked it. His body language changed after the Snickometer review. It was clear from the ball’s deviation that it hit the bat. When we took the review, he dropped his head, knowing it had nicked. While Snickometer didn’t show anything, other evidence proved it was out.”
Sunil Gavaskar, Former India Captain and Commentator
“We’ve seen this often – the ball swings late after missing the bat. From a distance, it may look like it nicked the edge, but it didn’t. This was another case of a visual error. If technology says it’s not out, there’s no basis to give it out.”
Simon Taufel, Former Umpire
“In my opinion, that was out. The third umpire made the right call. When there’s visible deviation after passing the bat, further proof from technology isn’t required. The third umpire used secondary technology effectively and correctly overturned the on-field decision.”
Mark Waugh, Former Australian Cricketer
“Simple – Jaiswal was out. The ball clearly deviated after hitting the bat or gloves. It might have been a faint touch, which is why Snickometer didn’t pick it up. But the correct decision was made.”
Ravi Shastri, Former Indian Cricketer and Commentator
“The third umpire has the authority to disregard Snickometer if he sees clear deviation after glove contact. He believed the ball changed direction after hitting the gloves, so he gave it out. I think it was the right decision.”
Ricky Ponting, Former Australian Captain
“They can debate this all they want, but it’s obvious the ball touched his glove. I noticed Jaiswal started walking almost immediately after.”
Justin Langer, Former Australian Cricketer
“This will remain a controversial moment. While it looks like it touched the bat or gloves, Snickometer says otherwise. There will be plenty of discussions about this post-match.”
Rajeev Shukla, BCCI Vice President
“Jaiswal was clearly not out. The third umpire should have followed the advice of the technology. Overturning the on-field decision requires irrefutable evidence, which wasn’t present.”
Michael Vaughan, Former England Captain
“Enough of this – it was out. Every decision yesterday was spot on. Australia was simply the better team this week.”
Surinder Khanna, Former Indian Wicketkeeper
“There was no controversy there. Four angles showed the ball touched the glove and slowed down as it reached Alex Carey behind the stumps. These guys (complaining) are liars. You must be honest before you can start winning. If you can’t tell whether the ball hit your bat or glove, that’s your fault. The truth is we played poorly and lost.”
This decision has split opinions and reignited discussions about the reliability of technology in cricket.
