KL Rahul had a smile of disbelief, which quickly vanished, and his face was filled with anger. Every inch of his body spoke the language of dissent. "There was a gap," he tells on-field umpire Richard Kettleboroguh before storming off the field while hurling a mouthful. You generally don't associate Rahul with such aggressive on-field behaviour. He is the calm in the storm, the sense in a pandemonium. But Day 1 of the India vs Australia first Test in Perth brought out a different version of Rahul. Most cricket fans would agree that Rahul had every reason to behave in that manner. He was the set Indian batter. He had done all the hard work. And above all, there was not enough for the third umpire to overturn the on-field umpire's decision of not out.

Third umpire Richard Illingworth was in the firing line for giving KL Rahul the marching orders. The veteran umpire's decision was criticised by fans and former cricketers alike. Former Australia cricketer Matthew Hayden, former India batters Sanjay Manjrekar and Aakash Chopra were shocked at Illingworth's decision. The former English cricketer, however, found support from legendary umpire Simon Taufel.

The former Australian, rated by many as one of the best umpires the game has ever seen, explained how third umpire Illingworth made the right call. Taufel said the spike that the ultraedge shown was of the bat hitting the ball and of the bat hitting the pads as there was a gap between the two events.

"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, the host broadcasters..

"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."

"We saw with that side on shot there was a spike on RTS with the bat away from the pad; in other words, the bottom of the bat hadn't reached the pad," he said.

Taufel, however, agreed that things perhaps would have been clearer had Ilingworth allowed the frame to continue further instead of quickly asking Kettleborough to change his decision to out.

"Therefore rolling that through in its natural course, you may have seen that second spike (on Snicko, to indicate bat hitting pad) come through, had it been rolled all the way through," he added.

What exactly happened in KL Rahul's dismissal?

It all transpired in the 23rd over of the Indian innings. Mitchell Starc got one go with the angle from over the wicket. Rahul had his bat and close together as the ball passed his bat and settled into the keeper's gloves. The Australians went up in a huge appeal but the umpire gave it not out before Pat Cummins sent it upstairs.

Third umpire Illingworth overturned the call despite not having the benefit of a split-screen view, which would have given him a clearer picture of whether the Mitchell Starc delivery actually grazed the bat or the snicko responded to a hit on the pads. All this unfolded 10 minutes before lunch and India ended the session at 51 for 4. Rahul, who made 26 off 74 balls, indicated that his bat hit the pad at the same time when the ball went past the edge.

Former India head coach Ravi Shastri, who was commentating for Fox Cricket, said there was not enough evidence for the third umpire to overturn the on-field official's not out decision.

"My initial reaction was, was there enough evidence there for the third umpire to overrule what was given. It was not out on the field of play. Did I see enough there for me to be convinced? I didn't see enough, to be honest," he said.

Former Australia batter Michael Hussey admitted on air that the third umpire's decision was a controversial one.

"That's controversial - there was a spike on the Snicko, but was the spike coming from the ball hitting the bat, or was it the bat hitting his pad?" Hussey asked while commentating for the same channel.

"You can see the bat just clipping the pad, so you've just got to get the timing right...there's got to be some doubt there in my mind."According to Hussey, Rahul had every right to question the decision, saying: "I don't think you can be 100 per cent sure that the decision is correct.""The disappointing thing is the technology's there to make sure you get the correct," he said.

Former Australia opener Matthew Hayden also felt that the spike in the snicko was not because of the ball taking an edge from Rahul's bat.

"His (Rahul's) pad and bat are not together at that point in time as the ball passes. It (bat hitting pad) is after, in fact, the ball passes the edge," Hayden said on air.

"Does Snicko pick up the sound of the bat hitting the pad? We're assuming (Snicko) may be the outside edge of the bat but that may not be the case."Australia batting legend Mark Waugh added: "That's a very brave decision given the evidence that we've seen there; unfortunately KL Rahul’s got to cop it sweet … (he) won’t be happy with the way it's ended."Former India players Wasim Jaffer and Irfan Pathan also felt the third umpire erred in his decision.

Read Also: Rishabh Pant's reply to Nathan Lyon's IPL auction jibe silences Australia great; stump mic chatter goes viral

HOW DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE? CHOOSE YOUR EMOTICON !