The Ashes series has been overshadowed once again by controversy surrounding Snicko, with growing distrust among players after two contentious decisions involving England wicketkeeper Jamie Smith on day two of the third Test in Adelaide.

While England’s on-field struggles continue — sliding toward defeat after another batting collapse — the focus has increasingly shifted to the reliability of the decision review system. Following an error involving Alex Carey on day one, Snicko was again at the centre of debate as Smith became involved in two highly disputed moments that left both teams visibly frustrated.

Background: Carey Error Sets the Tone

The issues began a day earlier when Australia’s Alex Carey was given not out after England reviewed a caught-behind appeal. Snicko appeared to show a spike, but it was later revealed the sound and images were out of sync due to operator error.

That admission significantly damaged confidence in the technology and set the stage for heightened tension when further close calls arose on day two.

First Incident: Smith Given Not Out After Review

The first controversial moment involving Smith came in the 44th over, with England 149 for five. Australia appealed after the ball ballooned toward Usman Khawaja at slip, prompting on-field umpire Nitin Menon to refer the decision upstairs to determine whether the catch was fair.

Third umpire Chris Gaffaney reviewed multiple angles, assessing whether the ball had struck Smith’s glove or helmet. While television replays suggested contact with the glove was likely, Snicko appeared to show a spike closer to the ball passing Smith’s helmet.

On that basis, Gaffaney ruled the ball had struck the helmet rather than the glove, and Smith was given not out. Australian players reacted angrily, with frustration clearly audible over the stump microphone. One player was heard saying, “Snicko needs to be sacked,” while others questioned the process being followed.

Second Decision: Smith Given Out Amid Confusion

The controversy deepened shortly afterwards when Smith attempted a pull shot off Pat Cummins. Australia appealed confidently for a faint edge, although Smith appeared convinced he had not touched the ball and was ready to review the decision if required.

Once again, Menon referred the call to the third umpire. Initial replays showed nothing obvious, but Snicko detected a spike within a permissible frame of the ball passing the toe of the bat. Under the laws governing the review system, that spike was deemed sufficient evidence, and Smith was given out for 22.

Smith walked off shaking his head, while England captain Ben Stokes made little effort to conceal his frustration, visibly dismayed by the outcome.

Growing Player Distrust of Snicko

Perhaps most concerning for the game is the apparent erosion of trust in the technology among players on both sides. During the reviews, Australian fielders were heard questioning what Snicko might show, with one remarking, “This could be anything.”

Former England spinner Alex Hartley, speaking on Test Match Special, suggested players are now appealing more aggressively simply because they no longer trust the system to deliver consistent outcomes.

She argued that teams are effectively reviewing everything, hoping the technology will work in their favour amid the uncertainty.

Was the Correct Procedure Followed?

There was also debate over whether the third umpire followed the correct process, particularly during the first incident when the referral was initially for a fair catch rather than an edge.

However, under International Cricket Council playing conditions, the third umpire is required to determine whether a batter has been caught, which includes checking for contact between bat, glove, or other equipment. On that basis, the procedure appears to have been correctly applied.

Former Australia fast bowler Glenn McGrath suggested that, while frustrating, both decisions were likely correct — though he acknowledged the wider issue surrounding confidence in Snicko.

Bigger Issue Than One Match

While England’s Ashes hopes are fading rapidly due to their own performances, the ongoing Snicko debate threatens to overshadow the contest itself. Technology is meant to provide clarity and fairness, yet repeated inconsistencies have instead introduced confusion and suspicion.

With players openly questioning the system on the field, pressure is mounting on cricket’s authorities to address concerns about accuracy, communication, and transparency — before trust in the game’s decision-making tools erodes further.