It took only 36 seconds from the start of the first replay before Menon upheld his initial decision. Holdstock concluded, after watching one replay and seeing a split-screen with UltraEdge, that the ball had hit the sweatband, which is considered part of the bat under Appendix A.2.5 of the MCC’s Laws of Cricket. “The ball makes contact with the glove,” Holdstock said.

Santner appeared to be bemused by the decision and looked quizzically at Menon before walking off, and Sangakkara, commentating on Sky Sports, immediately questioned whether the ball had hit the sweatband.

A further, side-on angle broadcast by Sky cast further doubt on whether the ball had brushed the sweatband. That replay would have been available to Holdstock, had he asked for further evidence.

“You got to ask the question: why weren’t the other replays warranted, in terms of making that call?” Sangakkara said. “You have so many different angles you need to ask for. On this [angle], it seems it might have touched. But on the other angle, you see clearly that he’s not [touched the ball].

“One thing [Holdstock could do] is to ask for the right angles, take your time, make a decision because there are crucial ones in any format of the game at crucial times, and sometimes, taking the time to really analyse every angle possible that is available to you as a third umpire might be advisable.

“When something gets referred, the third umpire has a lot of time – as much as he needs – to understand what replays are available and what [the] actual angle is, in terms of making that decision.”

Sangakkara’s Sky colleagues Mark Butcher and Dinesh Karthik disagreed that the wrong decision had been reached, but Butcher supported the view that Holdstock had been “a little quick on the trigger finger”.

If Holdstock had deemed that the evidence from the replays was inconclusive, he would still have advised Menon to uphold his initial on-field decision.