Former India cricketer Ravichandran Ashwin has criticized umpire Paul Reiffel over officiating incidents in the Lord’s Test, which is poised on a knife’s edge heading into the final day on Monday.
R Ashwin has called out Reiffel’s umpiring by pointing out some of the decisions that went against India. “My experience with Paul Reiffel… I want to talk to him. I am not saying that I should tell him to give it out. It’s not like that. Whenever India bowls, he always feels it’s not out. Whenever India bats, he always feels it’s out. If it’s not against India but against all teams, then ICC has to look into it,” Ashwin said on his YouTube channel, Ash ki Baat.
Apart from Gill’s decision, Ashwin also talked about another decision involving an Indian batter, where there was a wide gap between the bat and ball, which the DRS showed, after Reiffel had given it out.
14 wickets fell on the fourth day of the third Test between India and England, with the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy currently deadlocked at 1-1. There were also a few contentious decisions.
“I own a car, a sedan, which I can park through the gap between the bat and ball. It was not out. But this is not the first time. My father was watching the match with me. And he told me, ‘Whenever Paul Reiffel comes, India will not win.’ Even Mike Atherton and Nasser Hussain said the umpires could have acted a bit steadier with players taking time,” Ashwin added.
Reiffel turned down Mohammad Siraj’s LBW appeal against England batter Joe Root. The DRS appeal showed that the ball would have hit the leg stump, but Root was handed a lifeline due to the umpire’s call.
That incident became a flashpoint for the day, with Siraj throwing an angry stare at the umpire. Reiffel had also given India captain Shubman Gill out on a full-length ball from Brydon Carse, which flew to the wicket-keeper. DRS showed that the ball did not hit the Indian captain’s bat.
Ashwin is not the only one to be left irked at the decisions. Indian cricket legend Sunil Gavaskar also expressed his shock on air in commentary at the decision not being given.
