On Day 4 of the Sydney Test, with England at 219/3, Webster trapped Brook lbw for 42, a wicket that handed the tourists a slender 36-run lead.
Share
SYDNEY — An umpiring error has come to light following Harry Brook’s dismissal in England’s second innings, which reportedly stemmed from an illegal delivery by Australian all-rounder Beau Webster that went unnoticed.
On Day 4 of the Sydney Test, with England at 219/3, Webster trapped Brook lbw for 42, a wicket that handed the tourists a slender 36-run lead. However, replays later showed Webster had overstepped, with his back foot clearly outside the return crease. Third umpire Kumar Dharmasena failed to detect the no-ball, according to Code Sports.
Under the laws, the third umpire is required to check every wicket-taking delivery for front and back-foot no-balls. Had the infringement been identified, Brook should have been recalled to the crease.
England’s innings unravelled soon after Brook’s dismissal, yielding just 124 further runs and setting Australia a modest target of 160. The hosts chased it down comfortably to seal a 4–1 series victory.
Also read: Sabalenka, Rybakina reach Brisbane International QFs
On Day 5, Australia opener Jake Weatherald was also reprieved after appearing to edge a delivery from England seamer Brydon Carse. Dharmasena ruled there was insufficient evidence of a clear spike on Snicko, a decision that visibly frustrated Carse and left captain Ben Stokes furious as he challenged the on-field umpire.
Former England captain Michael Vaughan said such errors are unacceptable in the modern game, stressing that technology should prevent mistakes of this magnitude.
"I don’t think England will use these kind of decisions as an excuse for why they haven’t won the Ashes but fundamentally, we’re in 2026. With all the technology, that shouldn’t happen. To think there’s been some back foot no balls bowled on wickets and nothing has been done; it’s not acceptable in this era.
"That shouldn’t happen. That is a big moment. Are the third umpires looking for a back foot no-ball or not? They're the officiators of the game; they should know every rule. It’s a no ball, it should have been called,” he told News Corp.