Did it carry or not? Was it an edge or not? These questions have intrigued countless cricket fans throughout the sport's history.
Whether the dipping ball was caught cleanly before touching the ground is just like the question in soccer: whether it is a goal or not. It is controversial, much debated and capable of triggering wars, and opinions will remain divided for years after the incident—just like in the case of Geoff Hurst's controversial goal in the 1966 World Cup final against West Germany.
Even the use of technology and DRS has not prevented controversies over catches and LBW decisions from rearing their heads occasionally. Add to it the recent decisions during the Australia v India Test series on apparently feather-touch edge off the glove like in the case of Washington Sundar's dismissal in the fifth Test Sydney on Friday or the so-called deflection of the ball like in the case of the controversial decision against Yashasvi Jaiswal in the previous Test in Melbourne.
The latest controversy on a catch and subsequent decision by the TV umpire occurred on the opening day of the fifth and final Test of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy series between Australia and India in Sydney. Virat Kohli was given not out by the third umpire, ruling the ball to have brushed the ground before being flicked up by Steve Smith and caught by Marnus Labuschagne at gully.
Of the first ball he faced from Scott Boland in the eighth over of India's first innings, Kohli edged one behind to Smith at second slip. With the ball dipping towards the ground, Smith flicked the ball up while trying to get his fingers under it but the ball squeezed out of his fingers and the TV umpire Joel Wilson ruled that it was at this juncture that the ball brushed the ground before it was flicked up to be caught on the second attempt.
The Australians, Smith in particular, insist that the catch was picked cleanly and that there was no doubt that Kohli was out.
The Indian supporters, who were deriding the TV umpire for the controversial decision against Jaiswal in the second innings of the Melbourne Test, believe that it was the correct decision. Former Australia opener and coach Justin Langer said Kohli was out in his opinion. "His fingers were under the ball. Looked to me as if he was instinctively looking to flick the ball straight up. In my view, the finger was still under the ball. That should have been a great catch for Australia."
Former England captain Michael Vaughn waded into the controversy when he declared "I thought that was OUT", in his social media post while former India allrounder Irfan Pathan countered him with "Virat Kohli was not out which was rightly called NOT OUT," he said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
But Simon Taufel, Australia's five-time ICC Umpire of the Year award winner, said TV umpire Wilson took the right decision as per the protocols in place.
So, there are two things that the TV umpire here is looking for. One is fingers underneath the ball. He was satisfied there. But then he believes through those pictures that he's clearly seen the ball on the ground. And here's the challenge, slowing it right down with slow-mo. Play it at real speed and it looks pretty good. I can certainly understand what the third umpire's done there.
He believes he's seen the ball on the ground and called it the way he's seen it. Normally, the ICC protocol on fair catches is if you see the fingers underneath the ball, that's good to maintain a fair catch. But here’s the problem: the on-field umpires no longer have the soft signal and make the decision, it's purely in the hands of the television umpire now.
Sundar's dismissal on Friday was another example of decisions supported by inconclusive technology after the ICC decided not to use the Hot Spot in the DRS system and totally depend on the Snicko. The TV umpire ruled that the ball had brushed the underside of the batter's glove as he flayed at a rising delivery going down the leg side. He decided based on a minuscule spike shown by Snicko as the ball passed the bat and glove, which some of the Australian commentators felt could have been due to the myriad noises generated as the batter tried to play the ball.
There are 50/50 calls and the TV umpire took the decisions that he thought were correct. The debate will go on for years whether he really was correct.
