India batter KL Rahul's controversial dismissal on Day 1 of the first Test against Australia on Friday remains the biggest talking point. Rahul became the victim of a dodgy DRS call that saw the third umpire give the decision in the bowling side's favour, while many experts on social media suggested that the India batter was not out. As the debate around the dismissal continues on social media, former umpire Simon Taufel has given his definitive verdict.
Rahul was initially given not out by the on-field umpire while trying to defend off Mitchell Starc in the 23rd over, following which Australia went for the DRS, as they felt for a caught-behind dismissal.
On review, third umpire Richard Illingworth felt Rahul nicked the ball following a spike on Snicko, despite the bat possibly looked to hit the pad at the same moment. Despite Illingworth requesting a front-on angle, he wasn't provided one by the producers and had to make a decision through the inconclusive angle from behind the stumps.
"Umpires are looking for conclusive evidence. There were a few gremlins at the start of that review, being the first Test where he didn't get some camera angles he was asking for," Taufel said on the Channel Seven, the host broadcasters.
On seeing the out decision being displayed despite the lack of conclusive evidence, Rahul shook his head while walking to the dressing room in disbelief, after making 26 runs off 74 balls in the first session. Seeing that decision-making leading to Rahul's dismissal also left the commentators in disbelief.
Taufel thinks the ball did kiss the edge of Rahul's bat, causing scuff marks before the bat went on to hit the pad.
"Richard Illingworth had a tough job there, but this camera angle is probably the best one for me, it shows that the ball does graze the outside edge. In my view, the ball does graze the outside edge, which has caused the scuff marks, but then the bat goes on to hit the pad.
"So I think from a batter's perspective, they are looking to see that evidence on the big screens as the decision is made. I think that's exactly why KL Rahul has a question mark on his mind and Richard Kettleborough as well. I imagine there will be an interesting discussion in the umpires room in the lunch break."
Taufel further feels that the second spike would've come had the footage rolled through further.
"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," he said.
"Therefore rolling that through in its natural course, you may have seen that second spike (on Snicko, to indicate bat hitting pad) come through, had it been rolled all the way through," he explained.