Out or not? KL Rahul's controversial DRS slammed by commentators

KL Rahul’s controversial dismissal during the first Test between India and Australia in Perth has ignited debate over the Decision Review System (DRS) and the protocols followed by the third umpire. The incident occurred during the morning session when Mitchell Starc bowled a good-length delivery to Rahul, leading to an apparent edge that carried to wicketkeeper Alex Carey.

On-field umpire Richard Kettleborough ruled the batsman not-out, but Australia immediately reviewed the decision. The third umpire, Richard Illingworth, examined the evidence, relying heavily on the Snickometer, which showed a spike as the ball passed Rahul’s bat. However, visuals remained inconclusive, with uncertainty over whether the noise came from the ball brushing the bat or contact between the bat and pad.

Compounding the confusion, the only angle initially examined was from the leg-umpire’s perspective, which failed to provide definitive clarity. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence required to overturn an on-field decision, the third umpire adjudged Rahul out, leaving the Indian opener visibly upset. As he walked back to the dressing room, Rahul shook his head in disbelief, expressing frustration over the decision.

Commentator Mark Nicholas voiced concerns during the broadcast, stating, “So difficult to be sure one way or the other. How could you possibly overturn the decision?” According to ICC rules, conclusive evidence is necessary to overturn an on-field umpire's call. Interestingly, a bowler’s-end replay surfaced after the decision, showing no conclusive proof of an edge, further fueling the controversy.

The incident has drawn attention to perceived flaws in the DRS system. While the Snickometer suggested a potential edge, the absence of a definitive visual angle undermined the reliability of the evidence. Rahul appeared to argue that the sound came from the bat brushing his pad, not the ball, a plausible explanation given the inconclusive replays.

This decision adds to the growing criticism of DRS in cases where technology fails to deliver certainty. The lack of additional angles during the review has led to calls for greater scrutiny of the system and its application in crucial moments.