The ongoing Test series between India and Australia is often a battleground for more than just runs and wickets; it is a stage for controversial moments that ignite debates about the very fabric of the game. This fierce rivalry, between two of the top Test cricket nations, has produced numerous instances of tension, particularly when marginal decisions, often aided by technology, come into play. In the first Test of the 2025 Border-Gavaskar Trophy, a new controversy took center stage when KL Rahul’s dismissal sparked widespread discussion, shedding light on the flaws in the decision-making technology used in the sport.
KL Rahul’s unfortunate dismissal came just before the lunch break on the opening day of the Test in Perth. The sequence of events began with Mitchell Starc delivering a ball that angled away from Rahul, a right-handed batsman. As Rahul executed his shot, the ball seemed to pass close to the edge of his bat, and a faint sound was picked up by the stump microphone. However, simultaneously, Rahul’s bat appeared to brush against his pad, creating an additional layer of confusion. Initially, the on-field umpire, Richard Kettleborough, judged it to be not out, but after a brief consultation with his team, Australian captain Pat Cummins opted to review the decision. This marked the beginning of a complex chain of events that would fuel further controversy.
The third umpire, Richard Illingworth, conducted the review using a side-on angle of the dismissal. The Real-Time Snickometer (RTS) revealed a small spike in the audio as the ball passed near the bat. However, the big question remained: was the sound caused by the ball hitting the bat, or was it from the bat’s contact with the pad? This uncertainty was compounded by the fact that only a side-on camera angle was available for review. There was no direct front-on shot of the incident, making it difficult to clearly determine the point of contact. Despite this lack of conclusive evidence, Illingworth upheld the on-field decision, ruling Rahul out, which immediately sparked criticism from fans, pundits, and former players alike.
Former umpire Simon Taufel, who has a wealth of experience in the world of cricket officiating, analyzed the decision-making process and pointed out several areas where the review could have been handled better. Taufel suggested that if the footage had been rolled through in its natural course, a second spike on the Snickometer could have been visible, indicating the ball’s contact with the bat. He emphasized that the absence of this additional evidence meant the decision should have remained as "not out" until clearer proof could be presented. "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. Therefore, rolling that through in its natural course, you may have seen that second spike come through," he explained during a discussion on 7 Cricket.
Further complicating the matter, some viewers argued that the stump mic had indeed picked up a distinct woody sound before the bat hit the pad, which seemed to suggest that the ball had made contact with the bat. However, since this was not conclusive, the third umpire’s reliance on only one spike from the Snickometer and a single camera angle raised questions about the robustness of the technology used in this decision. In cricket, where the margin for error is often razor-thin, such uncertainty can become the subject of intense scrutiny.
The decision to uphold the dismissal without sufficient evidence also raised concerns about the quality of technology provided for the review. Cricket's decision-review system (DRS) is designed to ensure that umpiring decisions are as accurate as possible, but critics of this decision, including former cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar, argued that the third umpire did not have enough visual and audio evidence to confidently rule Rahul out. "First of all, a little disappointed with what was provided to the third umpire. He should have got more evidence. Based on just a couple of angles, I don’t think such an important decision in the match should have been made," Manjrekar said during a Star Sports broadcast. He pointed out that, visually, the only certain information was the bat’s contact with the pad, and that this alone should not have been enough to overturn the on-field umpire’s original decision.
This situation highlights the inherent challenges in using technology like Snickometer and the ball-tracking systems, such as Hawk-Eye and Virtual Eye, in live cricket matches. While these systems are designed to provide clarity and assist umpires, the reliance on technology can sometimes lead to situations where decisions remain ambiguous, especially when the data provided is not comprehensive enough. One significant flaw in this particular review was the absence of a front-on camera, which would have provided a better view of the trajectory of the ball and Rahul's bat. Instead, the third umpire was forced to rely on a side-on angle, where the ball was sometimes out of frame, leaving the decision to a degree of uncertainty.
Veteran broadcaster Hemant Buch also highlighted the limitations of the Virtual Eye system, which is used for ball-tracking in Australia. Buch, who has considerable experience in live cricket broadcasting, explained that the absence of fixed cameras, which are commonly used in other parts of the world for better accuracy, hampered the third umpire's ability to make a definitive decision. "Using broadcast (manned) cameras for DRS will always create problems. Fixed cameras won’t miss the ball. Here, there was no front-on view available, and Snicko had to rely on a camera from behind, where the ball was nearly out of frame and not clearly visible," Buch noted. The lack of a consistent and precise visual angle for such reviews has raised questions about the reliability of decision-making in international cricket.
The technology in question—Virtual Eye—was developed in New Zealand and functions similarly to Hawk-Eye, but with a few key differences in implementation. While both systems use high-speed cameras to track the ball’s path, Virtual Eye integrates more manual intervention, which allows technicians to adjust the ball’s predicted trajectory in real time. This approach has its advantages, but it also makes the system more prone to delays and potential inaccuracies than Hawk-Eye’s more automated process. This disparity in technology highlights the challenges cricket faces in standardizing its review systems across different countries, each with its own preferences and logistical constraints.
In this particular case, the debate surrounding the use of technology to make crucial on-field decisions once again raised the issue of whether current systems are sufficient for the level of precision required in high-stakes Test cricket. While Hawk-Eye is widely used for most international matches and has been proven to offer a high degree of accuracy, the continued use of Virtual Eye in Australia, despite its limitations, calls into question the overall consistency and reliability of cricket’s technological infrastructure.
The controversy surrounding Rahul’s dismissal has not only sparked intense debate over the quality of the technology involved but has also raised broader concerns about how decision-making in cricket is evolving in the age of technology. As cricket’s reliance on systems like Snickometer, Hawk-Eye, and Virtual Eye continues to grow, so too does the demand for better, more consistent technological solutions that can provide conclusive evidence in real-time. The current situation serves as a reminder that while technology is a valuable tool, it is not infallible, and its limitations must be acknowledged and addressed to maintain the integrity of the game.
In conclusion, the controversial dismissal of KL Rahul during the 2025 Border-Gavaskar Trophy has once again highlighted the challenges and flaws inherent in cricket's decision-making systems. While technology can undoubtedly assist in making more accurate and fair decisions, this incident underscores the need for improvements in the technology and its implementation. Cricket fans and experts alike are calling for better resources and more reliable tools to ensure that such pivotal moments in the game are not clouded by uncertainty, allowing for a fairer and more transparent decision-making process moving forward.
Â
