A major talking point emerged on the opening day of the third Ashes Test at Adelaide Oval after the operator responsible for Snicko technology admitted a mistake that led to Alex Carey being incorrectly given not out. The incident has placed renewed scrutiny on the use of audio-visual review systems in elite cricket and their influence on match-defining moments.
The controversy occurred when England appealed for a caught-behind decision with Carey well set at the crease. Although the on-field umpire ruled not out, England opted for a review. The third umpire consulted Snicko, which appeared to show an audio spike occurring before the ball passed the bat. On that basis, the original decision stood and Carey survived.
It later emerged that the Snicko feed had been compromised by operator error. The incorrect stump microphone channel was used, causing the sound to be misaligned with the corresponding video frames. As a result, the displayed spike did not accurately reflect the moment of contact between ball and bat. The company operating the technology acknowledged the mistake and issued an apology, confirming that the decision should not have been upheld based on the correct data.
The admission intensified debate around the reliability of review systems that are designed to remove human error from officiating. Critics argued that while technology is meant to assist umpires, it remains vulnerable to operational mistakes that can be just as decisive as on-field errors. Supporters of the system countered that transparency and accountability, demonstrated by the operator’s admission, are essential steps toward improvement.
Carey went on to make full use of the reprieve, continuing his innings and playing a central role in Australia’s recovery. While his performance stood on its own merit, the circumstances surrounding the review ensured the innings would be discussed as much for the technology failure as for the runs scored.
As the Ashes series continues, the incident has prompted calls for tighter protocols, clearer communication during reviews and greater safeguards to ensure technological accuracy. The focus now shifts to whether lessons will be learned quickly enough to prevent similar controversies from overshadowing the cricket itself.
