Australia captain Pat Cummins has openly questioned the reliability of Snicko technology used in Australian cricket, following a series of controversial decisions that overshadowed Australia’s decisive third Test victory over England in Adelaide. While the hosts secured the Ashes for a fifth consecutive series with an 82-run win, the match will be remembered as much for its officiating debates as for the cricket itself.
The Adelaide Test, which confirmed Australia’s dominance in the ongoing rivalry, was riddled with moments that reignited long-standing concerns about the consistency and accuracy of audio-based decision review systems. At the heart of the controversy was a contentious caught-behind appeal involving Australian wicketkeeper-batsman Alex Carey, an incident that England insist significantly altered the course of the match.
During Australia’s first innings, Carey survived a crucial appeal when he was adjudged not out despite a visible reaction from England’s fielders. The Snicko technology displayed a noise spike before the ball appeared to pass the bat, leading umpires to rule in Carey’s favour. The decision proved pivotal. At the time, Australia were struggling at 6-245 and Carey was batting on 72. He went on to compile a match-shaping 106, helping Australia add another 126 runs after the incident — a contribution that ultimately tilted the balance firmly towards the home side.
Adding to the intrigue, Carey himself later acknowledged that he believed he may have edged the ball, a candid admission that intensified scrutiny of the technology rather than the player. England’s frustration was understandable, particularly given the magnitude of the moment in an Ashes Test where momentum swings can decide entire series.
Responsibility for the error was later accepted by BBG Sports, the operators of Snicko, who attributed the issue to human error rather than a technical malfunction. England formally protested the decision to the match referee, resulting in the return of a review that had initially been lost. However, the damage — both psychological and competitive — had already been done.
The controversy did not end there. In England’s first innings, wicketkeeper-batsman Jamie Smith was given out caught behind following another Snicko-based decision that left the touring side bewildered. From England’s perspective, the two incidents combined painted a troubling picture of inconsistency in a system designed to eliminate doubt rather than create it.
Unlike most other major cricketing nations, Australia and New Zealand continue to use Snicko, while the rest of the cricketing world has largely transitioned to UltraEdge technology. UltraEdge is widely regarded as more accurate due to its refined audio-visual synchronisation, though it comes at a higher cost. This divergence has long been a point of debate, but the Adelaide Test brought the issue sharply back into focus.
Australia captain Pat Cummins addressed the matter candidly after the match, acknowledging that the technology used at home does not always align with what players experience overseas.
"The one here seems a little bit different to sometimes what you get overseas," Cummins said after Australia's 82-run win on Sunday.
Cummins explained that players on both sides often find themselves second-guessing the technology, regardless of whether they are batting or bowling.
"There's always a few murmurs ... you're hoping that it matches up if you're the bowling team.
"Sometimes you're kind of just making sure that it's all OK if you're batting, even if you feel like you haven't hit it."Yeah, it sometimes doesn't feel super-consistent. But you just crack on - whatever the umpire says."
His comments, measured yet revealing, highlighted a broader issue: even players at the highest level lack complete confidence in the systems used to judge pivotal moments of the game.
Another layer to the debate lies in the governance of decision review technology. The Snicko system used during the Ashes is deployed and funded by host broadcaster Fox Sports, rather than being centrally managed by cricket’s governing bodies. This arrangement has drawn sharp criticism from the Australian Cricketers' Association (ACA), which believes such responsibility should not rest with broadcasters.
ACA chief executive Paul Marsh voiced strong concerns during the Adelaide Test, calling the current setup illogical and potentially damaging to players’ careers.
"The players are frustrated," Marsh told AAP on Friday.
"Careers are on the line with this sort of stuff."
Marsh’s comments underscore the high stakes involved. In an era where contracts, selections, and legacies can hinge on a single decision, any perceived flaw in technology risks undermining trust in the integrity of the game. Players, coaches, and fans increasingly expect uniform standards across all international matches, regardless of venue or broadcaster.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) has previously emphasised the importance of consistency in officiating technology, yet variations remain due to cost, infrastructure, and broadcast agreements. The Ashes, as cricket’s most storied rivalry, inevitably magnifies these shortcomings, placing unprecedented pressure on systems like Snicko to perform flawlessly.
While Australia will celebrate another Ashes triumph, the lingering debate around decision-making technology ensures the Adelaide Test will remain a talking point long after the final ball. For England, the sense of injustice may fuel their resolve in the remaining matches, while for cricket administrators, the controversy serves as a stark reminder that technological credibility is just as important as technological innovation.
As the sport continues to balance tradition with modern advancements, the call for standardized, centrally controlled decision review systems is growing louder. Whether the Ashes controversy becomes the catalyst for meaningful reform remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: in the modern game, technology is no longer a silent assistant — it is a central character whose performance can define outcomes and shape narratives.
