What's new

[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Controversial dismissal of Yashasvi Jaiswal in India's 2nd innings of the 4th Test against Australia – a fair call or a mistake?

Was Yashasvi Jaiswal's dismissal in the 4th Test against Australia fair?

  • Total voters
    44
FearlessRoar

FearlessRoar

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Runs
28,038
Yashasvi Jaiswal is dismissed for 84(208) in India's second innings of the 4th Test against Australia.

He could have led India to victory, but his dismissal came under controversial circumstances – there’s a visible deflection, but nothing on the snicko.

Was it a fair call or should he have been given not out?

euSUBai.jpg




https://twitter.com/x/status/1873605713445974358
 
Last edited:
Why have technology when it proves inconclusive.
Why didn’t this series have hotspot?

Benefit of doubt should always go to batsman.

That was a bad call by umpire, he over turned the on field umpires decision without conclusive proof.

#Rigged
 
Sadly it’s like the Monkeygate Test all over again.

India bottle it on the last evening, and it’s the fault of the opposition and the umpires, anyone except themselves.

In 2008 they threatened to run away and go home. Two years ago in England they actually did.

Who knows what antics they will get up to if they lose this.

And don’t forget, Jaiswal actually knows - there’s no way he didn’t feel that hit the glove. But has he got the guts to tell his teammates that he really was out?
 
Technology failed but it was obviously out.

The ball doesn't just change trajectory like that.
 
big_gamer007 said:
Why have technology when it proves inconclusive.
Why didn’t this series have hotspot?

Benefit of doubt should always go to batsman.

That was a bad call by umpire, he over turned the on field umpires decision without conclusive proof.

#Rigged
Click to expand...
It’s not inconclusive. Everyone can see it smacked his glove - it wasn’t even a mild deflection.

India should be asking Pant why he has got out slogging twice in this match when the situation demanded application.

But no. Let’s blame the TV umpire for making a correct decision.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The rule says 3rd umpire must have conclusive evidence based on available technology to rule out onfield decision.

In this case the onfield umpire gave him not out and the technology concurred.

However, the third umpire ignored the technology and overruled onfield decision. So he was incorrect in giving Jaiswal out.

May I remind, the same 3rd umpire just few overs later trusted the same snicko and overruled onfield umpire decision again to give Akashdeep out.

I am not saying India would have won but fair is fair. In this case, 3rd umpire was not being fair and the decisions were massively biased against India.
 
Junaids said:
It’s not inconclusive. Everyone can see it smacked his glove - it wasn’t even a mild deflection.

India should be asking Rubbish Pants why he has got out slogging twice in this match when the situation demanded application.

But no. Let’s blame the TV umpire for making a correct decision.
Click to expand...
Yes juts bcoz Pant is Rubbish, 3rd umpire has the right to cheat.

What a logic sir ji. Not surprised though
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Junaids said:
It’s not inconclusive. Everyone can see it smacked his glove - it wasn’t even a mild deflection.

India should be asking Rubbish Pants why he has got out slogging twice in this match when the situation demanded application.

But no. Let’s blame the TV umpire for making a correct decision.
Click to expand...
Who is everyone?

The standing umpire couldn't see, the technology couldn't see.
 
Rajdeep said:
Yes juts bcoz Pant is Rubbish, 3rd umpire has the right to cheat.

What a logic sir ji. Not surprised though
Click to expand...
This is the same poster who said Tendulkar should have been banned after the controversial Kolkata Test against Pakistan in 1999. Why? Because after Tendulkar was adjudged out after Pakistani players shamelessly appealed for his run out, even after knowing what exactly happened, he went straight to the 3rd umpire's room to watch the replay instead of walking to the dressing room. And that agitated the crowd into rioting. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Junaids said:
Sadly it’s like the Monkeygate Test all over again.

India bottle it on the last evening, and it’s the fault of the opposition and the umpires, anyone except themselves.

In 2008 they threatened to run away and go home. Two years ago in England they actually did.

Who knows what antics they will get up to if they lose this.

And don’t forget, Jaiswal actually knows - there’s no way he didn’t feel that hit the glove. But has he got the guts to tell his teammates that he really was out?
Click to expand...
Bro how is that Rohail dude going. Any time we can watch him soon?
 
Rajdeep said:
Who is everyone?

The standing umpire couldn't see, the technology couldn't see.
Click to expand...
Anyone who watched the video, the key part of the DRS technology, could see it hit the glove and changed direction.

The fact that snicko malfunctioned doesn’t change the fact that video evidence proved it was out.
 
For the brain dead Indian fans who say it's not out

If there is an edge that goes to third slip that's given not out even though there's a thick edge. The bowling team reviews and snicko isn't working due to technical glitch, should the umpire give it not out because snicko isn't working or should we use the organs God gave us and clearly see there's a deflection
 
Junaids said:
Anyone who watched the video, the key part of the DRS technology, could see it hit the glove and changed direction.

The fact that snicko malfunctioned doesn’t change the fact that video evidence proved it was out.
Click to expand...
Much like how Hawkeye malfunctioned (manipulated), doesn't change the fact that Tendulkar was out against Ajmal in the 2011 WC, and how Pakistan would have won that match, and ultimately won the 2011 WC.
 
Hitman said:
This is the same poster who said Tendulkar should have been banned after the controversial Kolkata Test against Pakistan in 1999. Why? Because after Tendulkar was adjudged out after Pakistani players shamelessly appealed for his run out, even after knowing what exactly happened, he went straight to the 3rd umpire's room to watch the replay instead of walking to the dressing room. And that agitated the crowd into rioting. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:​
Click to expand...
Sorry, what’s that story?

The time I thought Tendulkar should be banned was after he changed his testimony to the ICC about Monkeygate. He put himself in the same situation as Ata-ur-Rehman: one of his pieces of evidence was therefore a lie and he perjured himself. I don’t know which testimony was truthful and which was a lie, but that’s irrelevant: the changing of testimony should have led to a multi-year ban.
 
Junaids said:
Sorry, what’s that story?

The time I thought Tendulkar should be banned was after he changed his testimony to the ICC about Monkeygate. He put himself in the same situation as Ata-ur-Rehman: one of his pieces of evidence was therefore a lie and he perjured himself. I don’t know which testimony was truthful and which was a lie, but that’s irrelevant: the changing of testimony should have led to a multi-year ban.
Click to expand...
Maybe Sachin saw something like the third umpire did in this game.
 
JaDed said:
Maybe Sachin saw something like the third umpire did in this game.
Click to expand...
A question for Indian posters.

Did you or did you not see the ball hit the glove?

Don't hide behind “but snicko showed nothing”.

Did you really, honestly not see the video show the ball hitting the glove?
 
Junaids said:
A question for Indian posters.

Did you or did you not see the ball hit the glove?

Don't hide behind “but snicko showed nothing”.

Did you really, honestly not see the video show the ball hitting the glove?
Click to expand...
I agree its out said it already, I was talking about Sachin here
 
Junaids said:
Sorry, what’s that story?

The time I thought Tendulkar should be banned was after he changed his testimony to the ICC about Monkeygate. He put himself in the same situation as Ata-ur-Rehman: one of his pieces of evidence was therefore a lie and he perjured himself. I don’t know which testimony was truthful and which was a lie, but that’s irrelevant: the changing of testimony should have led to a multi-year ban.
Click to expand...
Changed testimony? There was just one testimony in front of the judges, where he said what happened. And because of that the Aussies had to cry salty tears. Because a bully gets what's coming back to him. Regardless, the CA honored him on his 50th Birthday by naming a gate in SCG as Tendulkar-Lara gate.

How does that taste? 🤡
 
Hitman said:
Much like how Hawkeye malfunctioned (manipulated), doesn't change the fact that Tendulkar was out against Ajmal in the 2011 WC, and how Pakistan would have won that match, and ultimately won the 2011 WC.
Click to expand...

Hawkeye is predictive technology which can fail. That significant deflection wasn't constructed by camera man

Clearly OUT
 
Junaids said:
A question for Indian posters.

Did you or did you not see the ball hit the glove?

Don't hide behind “but snicko showed nothing”.

Did you really, honestly not see the video show the ball hitting the glove?
Click to expand...
You are missing the point completely. This has already been explained to you before that 3rd umpire works on a given guideline.

The guideline being, onfield umpire decision can only be reversed if the available technology showed it otherwise.

The available technology i.e snicko here concurred with the onfield umpire...so technically it was not out.

3rd umpire decided to trust his eye based on a tv footage to give the batsman out going against the rule of tv umpire was incorrect decision.

I know bcoz an Indian batsman was at receiving end you will not agree but I am just stating you the rules.

Rajdeep.
 
hur rizvi said:
Hawkeye is predictive technology which can fail. That significant deflection wasn't constructed by camera man

Clearly OUT
Click to expand...
When BCCI was against DRS, the whole of Pakistan was crying. When BCCI accepted DRS in the 2011 WC, the whole of Pakistan were crying because a decision went to the DRS and it came against them.

Heads I win, tails you lose.
 
Hitman said:
Changed testimony? There was just one testimony in front of the judges, where he said what happened. And because of that the Aussies had to cry salty tears. Because a bully gets what's coming back to him. Regardless, the CA honored him on his 50th Birthday by naming a gate in SCG as Tendulkar-Lara gate.

How does that taste? 🤡
Click to expand...
This is what the Match Referee said happened:


So no, it’s clear. Tendulkar gave evidence twice, and changed his account completely. I don’t know which time he was lying (or both), but he clearly perjured himself at least once.
 
Clever tactics from Australia to win the test.

They haven't won a non pink test against india in Australia since 2018.

They chose perfect third umpire for cheating.

Whats the point of technology just throw it in the dustbin and make the decision based on images and deflection.

Congratulations Australia for well paid victory .

:kp
 
Rajdeep said:
You are missing the point completely. This has already been explained to you before that 3rd umpire works on a given guideline.

The guideline being onfield umpire decision can only be reversed if the available technology showed it otherwise.

The available technology i.e snicko here concurred with the onfield umpire...so technically it was not out.

3rd umpire decided to trust his eye based on a tv footage to give the batsman out was incorrect decision.

I know bcoz an Indian batsman was at receiving end you will not agree but I am just stating you the rules.

Rajdeep.
Click to expand...
No.

There are Tests played without snicko. And decisions still get changed, because video is itself a form of tech evidence.

There is no rule which says that the video evidence is subordinate to snicko.
 
Rajdeep said:
You are missing the point completely. This has already been explained to you before that 3rd umpire works on a given guideline.

The guideline being, onfield umpire decision can only be reversed if the available technology showed it otherwise.

The available technology i.e snicko here concurred with the onfield umpire...so technically it was not out.

3rd umpire decided to trust his eye based on a tv footage to give the batsman out going against the rule of tv umpire was incorrect decision.

I know bcoz an Indian batsman was at receiving end you will not agree but I am just stating you the rules.

Rajdeep.
Click to expand...


In this Test I was a neutral: two teams in steep decline packed full of geriatrics who were not world-beaters even at their peak.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Junaids said:
No.

There are Tests played without snicko. And decisions still get changed, because video is itself a form of tech evidence.

There is no rule which says that the video evidence is subordinate to snicko.
Click to expand...
Read sir. I never said only snicko.

The rule says the 3rd umpire must reverse the onfield decision if challenged based on available technology. The available technology can be snicko, hotspot whatever. It depends on the host board what they can afford or provide.

Here cricket Australia has provided snicko as the guideline for 3rd umpire. However he bypassed it and overruled an onfield decision which is incorrect.
 
Junaids said:
In this Test I was a neutral: two teams in steep decline packed full of geriatrics who were not world-beaters even at their peak.
Click to expand...
Good on you sir. However that doesn't change the fact that Jaiswal was not out
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rajdeep said:
The rule says 3rd umpire must have conclusive evidence based on available technology to rule out onfield decision.

In this case the onfield umpire gave him not out and the technology concurred.

However, the third umpire ignored the technology and overruled onfield decision. So he was incorrect in giving Jaiswal out.

May I remind, the same 3rd umpire just few overs later trusted the same snicko and overruled onfield umpire decision again to give Akashdeep out.

I am not saying India would have won but fair is fair. In this case, 3rd umpire was not being fair and the decisions were massively biased against India.
Click to expand...


It's out there's visible evidence of the glove so it's out same as there is visible evidence of the most valuable primate bowling with crooked arm and his dodgy phanka action
 
Hitman said:
When BCCI was against DRS, the whole of Pakistan was crying. When BCCI accepted DRS in the 2011 WC, the whole of Pakistan were crying because a decision went to the DRS and it came against them.

Heads I win, tails you lose.
Click to expand...
This thread is about this decision. I don't really know what you are trying to prove. What if snicko missed it when umpire can clearly see the massive deflection? Do you really feel an unfair decision was made or just ranting out for nothing?
 
It is only controversial if you are blind as a bat. There is no need of relying on Snicko if you can clearly see the deflection.

What next - a batsman gets clean bowled and Snicko doesn’t pick up anything when the ball hits the stumps. Do you believe that it is not out?
 
Junaids said:
It’s not inconclusive. Everyone can see it smacked his glove - it wasn’t even a mild deflection.

India should be asking Rubbish Pants why he has got out slogging twice in this match when the situation demanded application.

But no. Let’s blame the TV umpire for making a correct decision.
Click to expand...

Technology showed it was not out.
Naked eye felt it was out.

Technology va naked eye = inconclusive.

On field umpire decision = not out.

Why did third umpire reverse the decision of on field umpire when benefit of doubt goes to batsman?


The rules of game states that there has to be definite proof to overturn on field umpires decision, when your own technology showed it as not out the “definite proof” went out of the window and hence the third umpire should have stuck with on field umpires call.

Either don’t use technology, or if you are using it then stick with the rules of game even if the technology seems to not be working.

That’s what rules say.

Had the on field umpire given it out then one could have understood the third umpire giving it out. But this was blatant blunder by third umpire as per rules of the game.
 
Sunil Gavaskar’s remarks on the issue, although he continued to back them up throughout his time in the commentary box:

“The ball that they are showing, which swung after passing the batter and going into the keeper's gloves, could be because of late swing."

“Umpires must overturn an on-field decision only when there is 'overwhelming evidence' and by no means it was overwhelming. It is a very poor decision.”
 
Thread should be made on Joel Wilson. What is wrong with that guy? He basically decided he won't give any outs today. 3 bad decisions and 2 were overturned.
 
FearlessRoar said:
Sunil Gavaskar’s remarks on the issue, although he continued to back them up throughout his time in the commentary box:

“The ball that they are showing, which swung after passing the batter and going into the keeper's gloves, could be because of late swing."

“Umpires must overturn an on-field decision only when there is 'overwhelming evidence' and by no means it was overwhelming. It is a very poor decision.”
Click to expand...

The deflection was clearly visible. That was overwhelming enough.

Gavaskar is being a sore loser just like Indian posters here.
 
Rajdeep said:
Good on you sir. However that doesn't change the fact that Jaiswal was not out
Click to expand...
Bhaijaan, the series is still 1-0 in favor of India because, let’s be honest, the pink ball test doesn’t count, and neither does the umpiring, which seemed to have its own agenda. :inti
 
FearlessRoar said:
Sunil Gavaskar’s remarks on the issue, although he continued to back them up throughout his time in the commentary box:

“The ball that they are showing, which swung after passing the batter and going into the keeper's gloves, could be because of late swing."

“Umpires must overturn an on-field decision only when there is 'overwhelming evidence' and by no means it was overwhelming. It is a very poor decision.”
Click to expand...
Lol deflection straight from the glove
 
Bhaag Viru Bhaag said:
Bhaijaan, the series is still 1-0 in favor of India because, let’s be honest, the pink ball test doesn’t count, and neither does the umpiring, which seemed to have its own agenda. :inti
Click to expand...
There is no agenda brother. I am just stating the rule laid down for 3rd umpires to abide which in this case umpires clearly didnt. Otherwise lets get rid of ball tracking, snicko, hotspot, ultraedge everything and let 3rd umpires trust their blind eye. If this decision was given against Aussies instead of India, you along with others here will using different tone.
 
big_gamer007 said:
Technology showed it was not out.
Naked eye felt it was out.

Technology va naked eye = inconclusive.

On field umpire decision = not out.

Why did third umpire reverse the decision of on field umpire when benefit of doubt goes to batsman?


The rules of game states that there has to be definite proof to overturn on field umpires decision, when your own technology showed it as not out the “definite proof” went out of the window and hence the third umpire should have stuck with on field umpires call.

Either don’t use technology, or if you are using it then stick with the rules of game even if the technology seems to not be working.

That’s what rules say.

Had the on field umpire given it out then one could have understood the third umpire giving it out. But this was blatant blunder by third umpire as per rules of the game.
Click to expand...
To be honest, this is why I think it’s a matter of time before India exits international cricket.

Yes, every other Board is addicted to Indian TV money. But we saw the BCCI deliberately damage Cricket South Africa a few years ago, then cause financial disaster by pulling out of a Test in England and everywhere they go there is this awful sportsmanship.

That’s why India are such unpopular tourists with the general public in all the SENA countries. And I wouldn’t shed a tear if they move to year round IPL and the rest of us can return to sensible scheduling and sustainable salaries.

We don’t need England and Australia’s best players to earn what they currently do: ten times more than Kiwis and South Africans and Pakistanis. Hopefully a better future lies ahead.
 
Rajdeep said:
There is no agenda brother. I am just stating the rule laid down for 3rd umpires to abide which in this case umpires clearly didnt. Otherwise lets get rid of ball tracking, snicko, hotspot, ultraedge everything and let 3rd umpires trust their blind eye. If this decision was given against Aussies instead of India, you along with others here will using different tone.
Click to expand...
Show the rule please.
 
Junaids said:
To be honest, this is why I think it’s a matter of time before India exits international cricket.

Yes, every other Board is addicted to Indian TV money. But we saw the BCCI deliberately damage Cricket South Africa a few years ago, then cause financial disaster by pulling out of a Test in England and everywhere they go there is this awful sportsmanship.

That’s why India are such unpopular tourists with the general public in all the SENA countries. And I wouldn’t shed a tear if they move to year round IPL and the rest of us can return to sensible scheduling and sustainable salaries.

We don’t need England and Australia’s best players to earn what they currently do: ten times more than Kiwis and South Africans and Pakistanis. Hopefully a better future lies ahead.
Click to expand...

You nailed it. POTW-material.

I think this sentiment is shared by many.
 
Junaids said:
To be honest, this is why I think it’s a matter of time before India exits international cricket.

Yes, every other Board is addicted to Indian TV money. But we saw the BCCI deliberately damage Cricket South Africa a few years ago, then cause financial disaster by pulling out of a Test in England and everywhere they go there is this awful sportsmanship.

That’s why India are such unpopular tourists with the general public in all the SENA countries. And I wouldn’t shed a tear if they move to year round IPL and the rest of us can return to sensible scheduling and sustainable salaries.

We don’t need England and Australia’s best players to earn what they currently do: ten times more than Kiwis and South Africans and Pakistanis. Hopefully a better future lies ahead.
Click to expand...

World cricket doesn't run as per the opinion of pakistanis and players don't earn what pakistanis want them to earn.


Chalo aage badho.
 
Indians: umpires are corrupt and took money from Australia.

Also Indians: BCCI is corrupt that's why they keep selecting Kohli.

In the space of a few hours they have said that the Australian team, Bangladeshis umpire and their own board are corrupt because Jaiswal nicked it and they lost a match.

What a wretched bunch of fans. Insulting so many people and using racist language because their superstars got humbled.
 
People are going on personal tirades here but simply unable to answer the question I raised.

What is the job of tv umpire?

The rule says the 3rd umpire must reverse the onfield decision if challenged based on available technology. The available technology can be snicko, hotspot whatever. It depends on the host board what they can afford or provide.

Here cricket Australia has provided snicko as the guideline for 3rd umpire. However the 3rd umpire bypassed it and overruled an onfield decision which is incorrect.

Please tell me what wrong I am saying?

I am simply asking a basic question...Rajdeep wants to know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Junaids said:
To be honest, this is why I think it’s a matter of time before India exits international cricket.

Yes, every other Board is addicted to Indian TV money. But we saw the BCCI deliberately damage Cricket South Africa a few years ago, then cause financial disaster by pulling out of a Test in England and everywhere they go there is this awful sportsmanship.

That’s why India are such unpopular tourists with the general public in all the SENA countries. And I wouldn’t shed a tear if they move to year round IPL and the rest of us can return to sensible scheduling and sustainable salaries.

We don’t need England and Australia’s best players to earn what they currently do: ten times more than Kiwis and South Africans and Pakistanis. Hopefully a better future lies ahead.
Click to expand...

Lol.

This is another level of delusion.

I swear 90 percent of posters here are simply trolls, rage bait sensationalists or crybabies.
 
Mamoon said:
It is not a troll, it is a fact. India is #1 when it comes to producing incompetent umpires, so no one is buying into your tears or feeling sorry for you.

You have lost this series because of your own shortcomings not because of umpiring decisions.
Click to expand...

Lost the series?

And no Indian expects any sympathy from pakistanis.
 
Rajdeep said:
People are going on personal tirades here but simply unable to answer the question I raised.

What is the job of tv umpire?

The rule says the 3rd umpire must reverse the onfield decision if challenged based on available technology. The available technology can be snicko, hotspot whatever. It depends on the host board what they can afford or provide.

Here cricket Australia has provided snicko as the guideline for 3rd umpire. However the 3rd umpire bypassed it and overruled an onfield decision which is incorrect.

Please tell me what wrong I am saying? Why are posters dragging Indians are unpopular tourists, I am a British emigrated to New Zealand etc.

I am simply asking a basic question...Rajdeep wants to know.
Click to expand...
Post the rule brother. You have referred to a rule for several hours now. Please post it from the rule book so we can all be enlightened.
 
Junaids said:
To be honest, this is why I think it’s a matter of time before India exits international cricket.

Yes, every other Board is addicted to Indian TV money. But we saw the BCCI deliberately damage Cricket South Africa a few years ago, then cause financial disaster by pulling out of a Test in England and everywhere they go there is this awful sportsmanship.

That’s why India are such unpopular tourists with the general public in all the SENA countries. And I wouldn’t shed a tear if they move to year round IPL and the rest of us can return to sensible scheduling and sustainable salaries.

We don’t need England and Australia’s best players to earn what they currently do: ten times more than Kiwis and South Africans and Pakistanis. Hopefully a better future lies ahead.
Click to expand...
If only a single International cricketer agreed with you.
 
What is this nonsense.

How many edges were referred to snicko because snicko is the guideline for 3rd umpire.

Do you think if Bumrah edged to 1st slip and referred to 3rd umpire and snicko didn't show deflection, Bumrah would get not out ?

Wake up!

Snicko just helps.

It's not the final call maker.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rajdeep said:
People are going on personal tirades here but simply unable to answer the question I raised.

What is the job of tv umpire?

The rule says the 3rd umpire must reverse the onfield decision if challenged based on available technology. The available technology can be snicko, hotspot whatever. It depends on the host board what they can afford or provide.

Here cricket Australia has provided snicko as the guideline for 3rd umpire. However the 3rd umpire bypassed it and overruled an onfield decision which is incorrect.

Please tell me what wrong I am saying? Why are posters dragging Indians are unpopular tourists, I am a British emigrated to New Zealand etc.

I am simply asking a basic question...Rajdeep wants to know.
Click to expand...

The review rule is that that the third umpire should overturn any decision he has a high degree of confidence is incorrect. The replay showing clear contact and deviation off the globe is enough to give anyone a high degree of confidence that it was incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Sunil Gavaskar 50th anniversary of debut in Test cricket today - how great was he?
Replies
75
Views
4K
ahmedzee
ahmedzee
H
Overall who was a better cricketer - Sachin Tendulkar or Viv Richards?
2
Replies
117
Views
9K
Hitman
Hitman
A
Another tour – same story : How can Pakistan ever win a Test series in Australia?
Replies
20
Views
5K
Pete Rose
Pete Rose
Back
Top