Manjrekar blames 'poor supply of technology' after Rahul falls to debatable DRS decision

Indian opener Kl Rahul was dismissed bizarrely on the opening day of the first Border-Gavaskar Trophy. The 32-year-old fell to a debatable DRS decision before lunch, with Sankjay Manjerakar stating such an “important decision” should have been made with more visual evidence. 

Batting at 26, Rahul, had been given not out by on-field umpire Richard Kettleborough, after pacer Mitchell Starc and the other Australian players appealed for a caught behind to wicketkeeper Alex Carey. Australia called for a review and Snicko indicated a spike as the ball went past the bat, with Rahul signalling the bat hit the pad. Third umpire Richard Illingworth asked Kettleborough to reverse his decision as Rahul strolled off the field shaking his head after a 74-ball effort. The wicket left India reeling at 47/4 after electing to bat.  

Manjrekar said it was a “poor supply of technology" and that the third umpire shouldn’t have asked the field umpire to change the decision if the evidence was inconclusive. 

“First of all, disappointed with what was provided to the TV umpire," Manjrekar said on Star Sports. "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. My point is, with the naked eye there's only one certainty and that's the pad being hit by the bat. It's the only visual certainty we've got that with the naked eye. For everything else, you needed the aid of technology, which is Snicko.

“So ideally, if there was a bat, as an edge to the ball, there should have been an earlier spike because two events there, and the umpire obviously heard one noise. The visual certainty was bat hitting the pad. If that was the spike, then there wasn't an outside edge. If we were shown two spikes, then you could say the first one was the bat. So it was a poor supply of technology to TV umpire, and he should have said he can't nail it."

Manjrekar also deemed the moment a “travesty” given India’s position in the match. 

“If there weren't two spikes, they should have gone with the visual evidence which was bat hitting the pad. I think it was poor all around, and I don't blame the on-field umpire. You got to feel for KL Rahul, the amount of hard work that's been put opening the innings. And such a big moment personally for him when you look at his career and for India too. Travesty in a way."

Ex-International umpire Simon Taufel was considering that the ball did graze Rahul’s outside edge but the bat perhaps also have brushed the bat, which may have caused a little confusion. 

“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 broadcast. "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."