The player review called for by England after Ajinkya Rahane had survived a bat-pad appeal off Jack Leach was a moment of high controversy, but also one which will have little bearing on the rest of the game.

Rahane was reprieved to England’s chagrin, with TV umpire Anil Chaudhary seemingly failing to check whether the ball had brushed the Indian batsman’s glove after hitting his pad. UltraEdge later indicated there had been contact, and therefore that Rahane should have been given out.

However, less than an over later the India vice-captain was out having added just one run to his score, and, following a request from England’s team operations manager Wayne Bentley, match referee Javagal Srinath agreed that England’s review should be reinstated.

But it’s unclear under whether Srinath had the authority to make the decision he did under the playing condition in operation. Appendix D of the ICC World Test Championship playing conditions set out the Decision Review System protocol. Section 3.6.8 regards when reviews can be reinstated, and reads as follows:

“A Player Review categorised as ‘Unsuccessful’ may be reinstated by the ICC Match Referee at his/her sole discretion (if appropriate after consultation with the ICC Technical Official and/or the television broadcast director) if the Player Review could not properly be concluded due to a failure of the technology. Any such decision shall be final and shall be taken as soon as possible, being communicated to both teams once all the relevant facts have been ascertained by the ICC Match Referee. A Player Review categorised as ‘Unsuccessful’ shall not be reinstated if, despite any technical failures, the correct decision could still have been made using the other available technology. Similarly, a Player Review categorised as ‘Unsuccessful’ shall not be reinstated where the technology worked as intended, but the evidence gleaned from its use was inconclusive.”

Given the UltraEdge replay which belatedly vindicated Root and England’s review was available so soon after the original decision was reached, it seems as if the incorrect decision wasn’t down to a “failure of the technology”. The section makes no reference to any possible errors by the TV umpire.

Still, it’s probable neither team would quibble with the current state of affairs too much. Rahane is out and England have their review. Two wrongs might just have made something close to a right, in this instance.

The ICC have been approached for comment.