But the most important thing here was whether the ball hit the bat first or the pad. And here I completely disagree with the explanation given by the third umpire to the on field umpire. There are two cases where third umpires come into play for a decision (apart from run out and stumping): 1. Referral: When the on field umpire doesn’t give a decision and asks the third umpire to recheck and gives a soft signal to him as well. In this case the third umpire can’t overturn the soft signal unless he has complete evidence against it. 2. Review(DRS- Decision Review System): When the players aren’t satisfied with the decision of the on field umpire. Here the DRS system has already given benefit of the doubt to the on field umpire (by default) by including Umpire’s Call in all LBW decisions.
So, in Virat Kohli’s review if the third umpire says he doesn’t have enough evidence if it hit the pad first or the bat first then he obviously has to go with bat and pad hitting the ball simultaneously which according to the laws of cricket is NOT OUT. Here ethically, you shouldn’t go with the on field call even if you don’t have enough evidence because the on field umpire hasn’t called for a referral here but the players have called for a review and also because the players here are investing their important reviews here (which are a mere 2 in number for 80 overs). Moreover, the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman as it’s always been followed in cricket in such cases. The benefit of doubt to the on field umpire has already been involved in the DRS system by default as I stated earlier. How much more benefit of the doubt should go to the umpire is the question here.