Tim Paine and Matthew Wade have called for consistency from third umpires using the DRS technology following the Australian Test captain’s controversial dismissal at the MCG on Monday.
On day three of the Boxing Day Test against India, Paine was dismissed by Ravi Ashwin following a DRS review for caught behind.
The Australian captain was given not out by the on-field umpire, but third umpire Paul Wilson overturned the decision after a small spike appeared on Snicko.
However, there was no visible edge on the Hotspot technology, prompting fierce debate among the cricket community.
Speaking to reporters on Monday evening, Wade suggested Paine’s dismissal was very similar to the DRS call against Indian batsman Cheteshwar Pujara during the morning session of day two.
In the first innings, the Australians appealed for caught behind after Pat Cummins drew a false shot from Pujara, who was given not out by the on-field umpire.
Paine quickly called for the DRS, and a small spike appeared on Snicko when the ball passed the bat, but there was no mark on Hotspot.
On this occasion, Wilson did not believe there was enough evidence to overturn the on-field decision, and Pujara survived.
Watch Australia v India Test Series Live & Ad-Break Free During Play with the Fox Cricket commentary team. New to Kayo? Get your free trial now & start streaming instantly >
“From what I’ve seen, it looked quite similar to the one we referred yesterday off Pujara,” Wade said.
“From all reports and what I’ve seen, Snicko probably showed a very similar thing, so one was given out and one was given not out.
“That’s the way the cookie crumbles sometimes, but that’s what it looked like from where we’ve been sitting and watching.
“I heard a noise on the Pujara one – I was at first slip at the time – and his bat was the only thing out there and then we saw what you guys saw, on the ground, there was a small spike.
“Either way, if it was out or not out, consistency is all you want as a player.”
READ MORE: Aussies crumble to ‘shocking’ 32-year low
Speaking to reporters after the eight-wicket loss to India, Paine admitted it was “extremely frustrating” for his innings to end in such controversial circumstances.
“It was a crucial part of the game,” Paine said on Tuesday afternoon. “Felt like I’ve been playing pretty well this series, and thought that if I could get in a partnership with (Cameron Green) and add another 120 runs together, the whole game changes.
“To have it finish like that is extremely disappointing, but it is what it is.”
When asked if he had hit the ball, Paine bluntly replied: “No, I think that was pretty clear from my reaction.
“I thought we had a pretty similar example in the first innings with Pujara, which sets a precedence, and then it seemed to change.”
The 36-year-old also revealed he had spoken with the match officials about the DRS protocols, but admitted the discussions weren’t very productive.
“My concern yesterday was not with the technology – it was with the precedence that was set in the first innings with Pujara,” Paine said.
“I think the decision was made too quickly – he didn’t look at enough replays to see the full evidence.”
READ MORE: Ponting’s savage call on Aussie batsmen
Paine elaborated on ABC Grandstand. “To have all the technology and be given out in this day and age when you didn’t hit it, is pretty disappointing,” Paine said.
“I wasn’t upset with the technology, I was upset with the use of the technology.”
DRS technology had been a bone of contention throughout the second Test, particularly after Australian batsman Marnus Labuschagne survived an LBW decision on Saturday.
Former ICC umpire Simon Taufel explained the Tim Paine dismissal on Channel 7: “There’s a number of things that the third umpire is working through. The first thing is if there is a deviation – that is normally the first thing they look for.
“The second thing is, if there is no deviation apparent, they look at the hotspot. If there’s no hotspot, they further protocol is to go to RTS.
“If the ball is close to the bat while there is a spike when the ball goes past the bat, or up to one frame past the bat, that is deemed to be conclusive evidence.
“There is a redundancy in that conclusive evidence protocol at the third umpire’s disposal.”