Was Yashasvi Jaiswal out? Here is what Simon Taufel, former ICC Elite Panel umpire, said

India may have been comprehensively beaten by Australia in the fourth Test of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy series yesterday, but the Indian fans are yet to get over the controversial dismissal of opener Yashasvi Jaiswal.

The youngster, who top-scored with 84, attempted to hook a rising delivery down the leg-side from Pat Cummins. The Aussies went up in appeal for a caught-behind as Alex Carey claimed the catch. The on-field umpire Joel Wilson was not convinced, following which Australia resorted to DRS. There was no spike on Snicko, but third umpire Saikat Sharfuddoula, much to the disbelief of India players and fans, ruled it out based on visual evidence of deflection.

Jaiswal's dismissal hastened India's collapse in the final session, allowing Australia to complete the 184-run victory and take a 2-1 lead in the five-match series.

ALSO READ: Rohit Sharma opens up on Jasprit Bumrah dependency, Rishabh Pant's recklessness after MSG defeat

Sharfuddoula's decision came under fire from Indian great and commentator Sunil Gavaskar, and BCCI vice president Rajeev Shukla, among others. "Yashasvi Jaiswal was clearly not out. Third umpire should have taken note of what technology was suggesting. While over ruling field umpire third umpire should have solid reasons," Shukla posted on X.

"The defection can be an optical illusion,” Gavaskar told host broadcaster Star Sports. “Why have you kept technology? If there is technology, one should use it. You can not make a decision based on what you see and ignore the technology."

'Third umpire made the right decision', says Simon Taufel

Former ICC Elite Panel umpire Simon Taufel, however, backed the third umpire, Saikat Sharfuddoula. "In my view the decision was out. The third umpire did make the correct decision in the end," Taufel told Channel 7.

"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. In this particular case, what we have seen from the third umpire, is they have 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 was made," Taufel added.