India's star batter KL Rahul was left stunned as he was controversially dismissed on Day 1 of the first Test of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy 2024, which began in Perth on November 22. With India electing to bat first after skipper Jasprit Bumrah won the toss, the incident involving Rahul became the major talking point of the day.

In the 23rd over of the innings, Australian speedster Mitchell Starc bowled a delivery that moved across the right-hander. Rahul, attempting a forward defense, positioned his bat and pad close together. As the ball passed, a faint noise was heard, leading to a huge appeal from the Australian fielders. However, on-field umpire Richard Kettleborough deemed Rahul not out.

Australian captain Pat Cummins opted for a review. The Decision Review System (DRS) was activated, and after examining multiple replays, the third umpire, Richard Illingworth, adjudged that the ball had indeed grazed the outside edge of Rahul’s bat.

Illingworth’s ruling drew sharp criticism from cricket fans and experts alike. Many argued that the noise could have been caused by the bat striking the pad, not the ball.

But not everyone was critical. Former elite umpire Simon Taufel, widely regarded as one of the best in the game, supported Illingworth's judgment. According to Taufel, the ultraedge clearly displayed the bat making contact with the ball before it hit the pad.

"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. 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," Taufel said during Channel Seven's coverage.

"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 does as well. I imagine there will be an interesting discussion in the umpires' room during the lunch break."

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