Australia lost their second straight game at the 2023 World Cup, falling short against South Africa by 134 runs. During their innings, there were two controversial decisions that were initially given ‘Not Out’ on the field but were reversed by the TV umpire after South Africa sent them up for reviews.

In the 10th over of the chase, a back of length delivery from Kagiso Rabada hit Smith high on the pad. The South Africans went up in appeal, which was turned down by the on-field umpire as it looked like the ball was sliding down the leg side to the naked eye. However, on review, the replays showed that the ball would have hit the leg stump and the TV umpire had no choice but to reverse the on-field call, leaving Smith shell-shocked.

Eight overs later, Stoinis was the victim of a similar controversial call when another back of length delivery from Rabada sliding down the leg side brushed his gloves on the way through to the wicketkeeper. The on-field call was ‘Not Out’ once again. South Africa went up in review and replays showed that Stoinis’ bottom hand was off the bat handle when the ball made contact with his glove, in which case he should not have been out.

[breakout id=”0″][/breakout]

However, TV umpire Richard Kettleborough adjudged that the bottom hand was in contact with the top hand at the instant when the ball brushed the bottom glove, and ruled him out.

During both instances, Labuschagne was the non-striker and watched the drama unfold from the other end. In the post-match press conference, when he was asked about the two dismissals, Labuschagne explained what the Australian batters were thinking out in the middle.

“Look, the umpires really didn’t know what was going on. They just saw what we saw, so it wasn’t really too much going on,” said Labuschagne about the Stoinis dismissal. “I mean, for me, it looked like, and I was on field, I can’t see, but it looked like his hand was off the bat, it hit the glove. And so, because they didn’t go to the side-on angle, Marcus and I were just asking, have they checked?

“Because they just saw the spike from the front on, and they didn’t sort of get a close-up zoom in of the side. That just looked like there was clear daylight between the two gloves and the handle.”

[breakout id=”1″][/breakout]

Labuschagne, however, played it safe in the end: “But once again, I have been into the third umpire room and the screens are big and everything’s much clearer than me standing in the middle looking at a pretty pixelated screen.”

About the Smith dismissal, he said that they felt that the ball would have clearly gone down to miss the leg stump, especially given the way Smith shapes up in his stance, and that it came as a shock to them that the ball-tracker showed the ball hitting the wicket.

[breakout id=”2″][/breakout]

“I was looking at the screen and I actually said to Joel [Wilson, the on field umpire], good decision. Cause from front on it just looked like it was going down leg straight away. And Steve was like, ‘What do you think?’ I was like, ‘Nah, I don’t even think it’s close’. I felt like the angle was pushing down leg,” said Labuschagne.

“He (Smith) usually plays that sort of shot where he leaves his leg out, he doesn’t cross over like most normal batters, he leaves his leg out of the way so his leg is always – maybe it’s hit him on leg stump and then drifting down – but for the ball I mean I haven’t seen the final footage but it looked like it must have hit him on leg and then almost straightened onto the stumps.

“Yeah, it just wasn’t what it felt like out there but once again I can’t argue with technology or not right now.”