EXPLAINED: Why Virat Kohli Was Not Given Out Even When Steve Smith's Fingers Were Under The Ball

The fifth and final Test of the Border-Gavaskar series at the Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG) started with drama that has set the cricketing world abuzz. The focal point? A contentious third-umpire decision that kept Indian batting maestro Virat Kohli at the crease despite Steve Smith appearing to complete a low catch at second slip.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Fox Cricket (@foxcricket)

The Incident: A First-Ball Edge and the SCG Standoff

India was reeling at 17/2 when Kohli walked in to face Scott Boland. The first ball he faced took the edge of his bat and flew toward Smith at second slip. Smith, diving low to his right, got his fingers under the ball before it popped out toward Marnus Labuschagne, who claimed the catch.

Kohli, however, stood his ground, prompting the on-field umpires to refer the decision to the third umpire. What followed was an extended review that polarized fans, players, and pundits alike.

Third Umpire’s Verdict: Why It Was Not Out

Third umpire Joel Wilson ruled Kohli not out, citing insufficient evidence to confirm a clean catch. Under MCC Law 33, for a catch to be deemed fair, the ball must not touch the ground during the act of being caught. While the replays clearly showed Smith’s fingers under the ball initially, subsequent frames suggested that the ball may have grazed the turf as Smith completed the catch.

Wilson’s explanation hinged on the second point of MCC Law 33: “control of the ball and the player's movement.” While Smith had the ball between his fingers, the apparent contact with the ground during the act led Wilson to believe the conditions of a clean catch were not fully met.

Diverging Opinions: Cricket Fraternity Divided

The decision sparked heated debates, with opinions split down the middle. Former Test umpire Simon Taufel, speaking on Channel 7, acknowledged the difficulty of the call.

“Depending on which side of the fence you sit on, you could build a case for either decision,” Taufel explained. “Joel Wilson believed he saw the ball touch the ground, which by the rules invalidates the catch.”

Conversely, Australian legend Mark Waugh and Steve Smith himself were adamant the catch was clean. “100% a fair catch,” Smith said during the lunch break. “No denying it whatsoever.”

Technological Limitations and the Absence of a Soft Signal

A critical aspect of the debate was the absence of the soft signal. Previously, on-field umpires provided an initial ruling (soft signal), which the third umpire would overturn only if there was conclusive evidence. However, the ICC’s recent decision to abolish the soft signal left the final call solely in the hands of the third umpire, reliant on video evidence.

Mark Nicholas, commentating on the game, believed this shift complicated matters. “The soft signal provided clarity in such close calls. Without it, the TV umpire has to make a judgment call based on imperfect technology,” Nicholas remarked.

Player Reactions: Acceptance Amid Frustration

While Smith’s visible frustration was evident, he accepted the decision, stating, “The umpire's made the decision, and we will move on.” Virat Kohli, on the other hand, played cautiously following the reprieve but was dismissed in the second session, edging another Boland delivery to third slip.

Broader Implications: Revisiting the Rules?

This incident has reignited discussions about the role of technology in cricket. With ultra-slow-motion replays often providing inconclusive evidence, experts like Michael Vaughan have called for more precise guidelines. “In live motion, it looked out, but modern rulings emphasize any contact with the ground,” Vaughan noted.