Technology used to assist umpiring decisions in the ongoing Ashes series came under fresh scrutiny during the third Test at Adelaide Oval, with controversy surrounding the Decision Review System (DRS) and the Snickometer (Snicko) tool fuelling frustration for both teams and cricket officials.
The issue first flared on day one when England’s appeal against Australia wicketkeeper Alex Carey for caught behind was reviewed. Carey was on 72 and appeared to edge a delivery from Josh Tongue, but the third umpire upheld the on-field not out decision despite a spike on the Snicko graph. Subsequent analysis showed the spike did not align with the ball passing the bat, and the Snicko operator later admitted that an incorrect stump microphone had been used during audio processing, effectively undermining the reliability of the technology. Carey went on to score 106 in the innings, compounding England’s frustration. BBG Sports, the technology provider, accepted responsibility for the error, attributing it to human error in microphone selection.
The controversy did not end there. On day two, Snicko again drew criticism when England wicketkeeper Jamie Smith was given out caught behind for 22 despite replays showing a clear gap between bat and ball. The third umpire upheld the dismissal based on a spike on Snicko, even though video evidence did not show contact. The decision reignited debate about the system’s accuracy and whether it should be relied upon in critical moments of Test cricket. Adelaide
Australia’s fast bowler Mitchell Starc was vocal in his criticism, telling commentators that the technology “needs to be sacked” and calling it “the worst technology there is,” reflecting broader frustration within the Australian camp at repeated perceived errors.
The incidents have prompted criticism from cricket officials as well. Cricket Australia CEO Todd Greenberg condemned the DRS error that led to Carey’s controversial reprieve, saying the technology was meant to eliminate “howlers” but instead introduced uncertainty due to human and technological mistakes. Greenberg said Cricket Australia was seeking answers from the technology provider to ensure such issues do not recur. Adelaide
England’s camp has also expressed dissatisfaction, with bowling coach David Saker suggesting that concerns about the Snicko system have existed throughout the series and that its calibration may be problematic. England officials have discussed raising the matter with match referee and cricket authorities to prompt a review of the protocols.
The back-to-back controversies have reignited debate about the reliability and role of review technology in cricket, especially when high-stakes decisions hinge on borderline evidence. Critics argue that if technology cannot consistently provide accurate, synchronised audio and video data, then its utility is undermined, potentially affecting match outcomes and diminishing confidence among players and fans alike.
Overall, the Adelaide Test’s technology disputes have once again put the spotlight on how cricket uses and manages review systems, raising questions about whether improvements or alternative technologies are needed to uphold fairness and accuracy in the sport’s most prestigious contests.
