Ricky Ponting calls out glaring truth as third umpire's massive mistake in fourth Test revealed

Ricky Ponting has slapped down Indians whingeing about Yashasvi Jaiswal's dismissal in the fourth cricket Test, while former top umpire Simon Taufel has revealed the third umpire shouldn't have used 'Snicko' in the first place. Controversy erupted on Monday afternoon when third umpire Sharfuddoula Saikat overturned the on-field decision that Jaiswal hadn't hit the ball.

Pat Cummins and the Aussies were convinced the ball glanced Jaiswal's bat or glove as it went through the keeper Alex Carey, but on-field umpire Joel Wilson gave it not out. Replays showed a clear deflection when the ball passed the bat, and the ball deviated from the original path it was travelling.

That was enough evidence to give Jaiswal out, but Sharfuddoula decided to use 'Snicko' to make sure. The situation then exploded when 'Snicko' didn't register a spike, but Sharfuddoula still gave Jaiswal out because common sense and the vision told him the ball changed direction.

Jaiswal and what seemed like the entire nation of India were left fuming over the decision, but Ponting summed it up best in commentary for Channel 7. "They can make of it what they like," the Aussie legend said. "That clearly hit the glove. As far as I'm concerned, there's no argument whatsoever.

"I caught it at the time, Jaiswal actually started to walk (off the field). As soon as the Aussies went upstairs he started to take a couple of steps away. Snicko hasn't proven it to be correct, but the umpire picked up the deflection and froze it where the ball was on the end of the glove. As far as I'm concerned, there is no argument whatsoever."

Simon Taufel says third umpire shouldn't have used 'Snicko'

Speaking to Channel 7, former top umpire Taufel actually revealed that Sharfuddoula erred by using 'Snicko' in the first place because the evidence to the naked eye was so conclusive. Taufel said Sharfuddoula actually caused unnecessary confusion by not trusting what his eyes told in the first place.

"In my view the decision was right. The third umpire did make the right decision in the end," Taufel said. "With the technology we have a hierarchy, and with 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, they've 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 of the third umpire went back to the clear deflection and overturned the umpire field. So in my view correct decision.

"That is why the umpires should not go to that the secondary form of technology. They had sufficient evidence to overturn the on-field decision and they did and it raised unnecessary confusion in this case."

RELATED:

• Cricket world rages over 'disgraceful' act after Aussies win fourth Test

• Jasprit Bumrah's savage act towards Sam Konstas amid 'farcical' drama

'Snicko' operator explains why there wasn't a spike

Warren Brennan, who runs the company that operates 'Snicko', later explained to the Daily Telegraph why the technology didn't register a spike. Brennan said 'Snicko' is only useful when there's been an actual 'nick', but in this case the ball seemed to slide off the face of the bat.

“That was one of the glance shots where there isn’t any noise so Snicko shows nothing, only ambient noise,” Brennan said. “I checked with the audio director and he said there was no noise either. Probably only Hot Spot could have resolved that one.”

Hot Spot would have shown a mark on either Jaiswal's bat or glove, but it isn't being used in this series due to concerns around how it reacts to high temperatures. “I don’t know what to make of that, because the technology didn’t show anything. But with the naked eye, it seemed that he did touch something,” India captain Rohit Sharma admitted.

“So I don’t know how the umpires want to use the technology, but in all fairness, I think he did touch the ball. But again, it’s about the technology, which we all know, is not 100 per cent...I feel we’ve been little unfortunate.”