WATCH: AUS vs IND 2024-25: Why was Yashavi Jaiswal given despite no spike on Snicko? - Explained

Yashasvi Jaiswal maintained his calm and played some brilliant cricket on Day 5 of the Boxing Day Test at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The visitors needed someone to play the role of an anchor and Jaiswal did that perfectly, keeping India alive in the contest. He lost partners from the other end one by one, but the youngster looked determined, despite constant sledging from Sam Konstas and Alex Carey.

However, in the 71st over, there was a lapse in concentration as the youngster decided to pull one but failed to time it. The on-field umpire ruled him not-out but Australia decided to review the decision. While it seemed that the ball clearly made contact with the sticker of his bat and gloves, there was shickingly no spike on the Snicko. However, the third umpire decided to overrule the on-field call based on visual evidence despite the technologiy suggesting otherwise, which sparked controversy. 

Notably, third umpire Sharfuddoula watched the clip multiple times and even though Snicko didn’t support his stance, he decided to rule him out as the umpire was convinced that the ball had indeed hit Jaiswal’s bat and the ball deflected.

Former umpire Simon Taufel, meanwhile, noted that Sharfuddoula was right to call Jaiswal out. He highlighted that umpires follow certain protocols and if they see a clear deflection off the bat, they don’t depend solely on technology to confirm such calls, especially when the visual evidence is conclusive enough.

“In my view the decision was out. The third umpire did make the correct decision in the end. With the technology protocols, we do have a hierarchy of redundancy and when the umpire sees a clear deflection off the bat there is no need to go any further and use any other form of technology to prove the case. The clear deflection is conclusive evidence,” Taufel told on 7Cricket.

“In this particular case what we have seen from the third umpire, is they've used a secondary form of technology, which for whatever reason hasn't shown the same conclusive evidence of audio to back up the clear deflection. In the end the third umpire did the right thing and went back to the clear deflection and overturned the umpire field. So, in my view correct decision made,” he added.