'Funny umpiring' - Twitter reacts after on-field umpires' review against Virat Kohli creates confusion

A slight controversy erupted during the first day of the World Test Championship final at the Ageas Bowl, Southampton, when on-field umpires Michael Gough and Richard Illingworth, after discussing with each other, consulted third umpire Richard Kettleborough for a caught behind appeal involving Indian skipper Virat Kohli.

Trent Boult and New Zealand vehemently appealed against Kohli on the last ball of the 40th over as Kohli tried to work Boult on the leg-side but failed to connect. A slight voice as the ball went past the bat meant that the bowler, wicketkeeper and slip fielders were convinced that they had their man.

While an adamant Boult tried to convince his captain Williamson to take a review, the 15-second timer ran out. However, the on-field umpires went upstairs, nevertheless, where the third umpire checked not only the legality of the delivery and the catch but also if there was any bat involved. Notably, this was not an occasion of DRS, but an umpire’s review as they felt that the batter had edged the ball.

The confusion, however, was regarding whether the third umpire should have checked with the UltraEdge or should have restricted instead to only whether the catch was taken cleanly. What made matters worse was the fact that there seemed no question regarding whether the catch was clean, as BJ Watling grabbed the ball easily above the ground which was evident to a naked eye.

A slightly taken aback Kohli was seen interacting with the umpires, although, much to his satisfaction, the UltraEdge showed no movement and he survived the appeal. But whether the act of the umpires in accordance with the due process?

Was the third umpire correct in checking with the UltraEdge?

Law 2.2 of the ICC Test Playing Conditions deals with Caught Decisions and Obstructing the Field. Law 2.2.3 further states:

“The third umpire shall determine whether the batsman has been caught, whether the delivery was a Bump Ball, or if the batsman obstructed the field. However, in reviewing the television replay(s), the third umpire shall first check the fairness of the delivery for all decisions involving a catch (all modes of No ball except for (i) in respect of the front foot, which shall already have been checked in accordance with clause 21.5; and (ii) the bowler using an Illegal Bowling Action, subject to the proviso that the third umpire may review whether the bowler has used a prohibited Specific Variation under Article 6.2 of the Illegal Bowling Regulations) and whether the batsman has hit the ball. If the delivery was not a fair delivery or if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball he/she shall indicate to the bowler’s end umpire that the batsman is Not out caught, and in the case of an unfair delivery, advise the bowler’s end umpire to signal No ball. See also paragraph 2.6 below. Additionally, if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman is Out by another mode of dismissal (excluding LBW), or Not out by any mode of dismissal (excluding LBW), he/she shall notify the bowler’s end umpire so that the correct decision can be made.”

Therefore, the third umpire was procedurally correct in checking whether the “batsman had hit the ball”. That did not mean Twitter stayed quiet, though.