Technology, I’m in favour of it… but it’s bringing curse into the game: Mohammad Hafeez reacts to Mohammad Rizwan’s controversial dismissal

Mohammad Rizwan’s dismissal during the fourth day of the Australia vs Pakistan Test has sparked a controversy. The wicket has tilted the game’s balance significantly and helped Australia win and seal the series.

Pakistan coach Mohammad Hafeez, reacting to the decision after the game, would say technology is putting a “curse” on the game.

“Technology, I’m in favour of it if it’s giving you the benefit, but if it’s bringing some doubt and some curse into the game, it should not be acceptable by anyone,” Hafeez told the reporters.

“I think there are a lot of areas that need to be addressed for the betterment of cricket in general where technology is taking away from the instinct of the game,” Hafeez added.

Wicket 250 for Pat Cummins! 🎉

The third umpire decided the ball flicked Mohammad Rizwan's sweatband on the way through. #MilestoneMoment | @nrmainsurance | #AUSvPAK pic.twitter.com/vTuDL5DmNB

— cricket.com.au (@cricketcomau) December 29, 2023

Chasing 318 runs, Pakistan were well in the game at 219-5 when Rizwan, batting on 35, tried to leave a short ball.

The ball hit him on the lower right arm and carried to wicket-keeper Alex Carey, and the Australians appealed. Michael Gough’s on-field umpire did not give it out, and Cummins challenged the decision and sent it upstairs.

Third umpire Richard Illingworth referred to the spike on ultra edge as the ball passed Rizwan’s wristband, and Illingworth asked Gough to overturn his original decision of not out. Noticeably, there was no mark on the hotspot as the ball passed Rizwan.

The Pakistan keeper-batter was unhappy with the decision and suggested that the ball had brushed his forearm instead of the wristband.

“I spoke to him (Rizwan), and he’s sincere. What he said to me was he did not even feel that it touched anywhere near the gloves,” Hafeez said. “And we know there should be conclusive evidence for the third umpire to reverse the decision.”

“The umpire gave it not out, and there was no clear, conclusive evidence that the decision has to be turned over,” he added.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.