England vs India 4th Test: Reviewing the Controversial Rahul Dravid Dismissal

It was the last ball of the 13th over of India’s second innings against England in the Oval Test. Rahul Dravid was up against England spinner Graeme Swann. All day long, Dravid had negotiated the turn and bounce from Graeme Swann quite brilliantly but finally faltered in the ultimate delivery of the Englishman’s fourth over. The ball spun back from outside off stump, and passed very, very close to the bat before going onto hit pad and looping on to Cook who palmed it with one hand and collected the catch. The catch was claimed in unison by the English players, but the on-field umpire didn’t look too interested in that and hence Dravid was ruled not out. The England skipper Andrew Strauss thought otherwise and asked for a referral to third umpire Steve Davies under the DRS referral system. Lo and Behold, Dravid was adjudged caught at short-leg off Swann and with it the third umpire set the ball rolling for another debate on the much anticipated Hot Spot and DRS system.

The debate then shifted to the social platform Twitter, where cricket fans and experts had an opinion of their own. So, all in all, one would say that either way it was a marginal call. But as someone who has been following the game for a decade now, it is perhaps my duty to bring forth my stand on this issue. So here is what I think about the dismissal:

My first reaction to that in real time was ”It is out”! But on observing the replays in slow motion, I got the feeling that the ball had just missed the edge of the bat. The commentators on air said that the body language of Dravid immediately after the appeal was not that inspiring and was suggesting that he had nicked it. To me, Dravid just went back so that he could withdraw himself from the frame. If ever this meant that a batsman has edged a ball, then we would have come across many bizarre dismissals in the past. Anyways, when a decision has been referred to the third umpire, what a batsman’s body language suggests or what the bowler thinks does not really matter– The decision lies in the hands of third umpire and he is the guy who has to come out with a judgement.

Now, the referral was made under DRS and so it was pretty clear that the TV umpire had 2 parameters to work with–first to see whether it was a legal delivery or not, which it was, and secondly use the much anticipated ” Hot Spot” and decide if there was a nick. That is where all the problem lies– Dravid, in the post match interview, said that he thought he nicked it, England thought he nicked it, but the most important technology on which DRS is based i.e ”Hot-Spot” said that there was no edge there. Must say that it was a brave decision by umpire Davies.

What Davies did there was go right against the technology and send across a message that said “See the hot spot is not right, there was a nick and i saw it”, meaning even if the technology says it’s not out, he can exercise the right to go against it. Davies’ responsibility as the third umpire is to survey all the evidence that is provided to him within the confines of the DRS, once a particular decision has been made by the on-field umpires and has been challenged. ‘Not Out’ was the decision by the on-field umpire, which was challenged by England. As a match official, you need to go by what is at your disposal and if you are going to adjudge a dismissal based on your own parameters, then why have DRS in the first instance?

The ball actually deviated from its path quite a bit as it passed the willow and Davies thought that there was a slight nick–so slight that even Hot Spot couldn’t pick it up. The ball must have actually deviated because of the turn that the wicket was offering. It pitched and turned viciously but not for once from those slow-mo replays, snickos and the audio feed from the stump microphone, I felt that there was an inside nick. To be honest, if Davies thinks that the ball actually deviated because there was a thin nick, then let me tell you that I have never really seen a ball deviate so much because of a faint edge.

In a nutshell, when an on-field umpire’s decision is challenged via DRS, the third umpire needs to confirm whether the right judgement has been made using all the technology that is there at his disposal. If he wishes to overturn it then there has to be enough overwhelming evidence for that. The DRS was meant to eliminate howlers, and not rule on marginal calls. In case of marginal calls, the ground umpire’s decision should stand.

The fact that this decision has affected the match is inarguable. With the BCCI approving the usage of DRS in the home games, there will indeed be plenty to talk about the Hot Spot and it’s credibility on the Indian wickets where the ball turns and bounces. It will indeed be a litmus test for UDRS.