Van der Dussen was facing the last over before lunch when Shardul Thakur managed to get a delivery to seam viciously back into the right hander. Van der Dussen got a thick inside edge which then ballooned off his thigh and through to Pant behind the stumps.

The decision was given out on the field and the players duly headed off for lunch. It was only when replays were shown that doubt was cast on whether the ball had in fact carried or not.

In the studio, Shaun Pollock and Eric Simons discussed the possibility of whether van der Dussen would be allowed to return if the umpires decided that a mistake had been made. Pollock emphasised that previously once a player had left the field of play they were deemed to have been dismissed, whilst noting that more recently this was no longer always the case, citing when players were called back after a no-ball had been bowled.

Law 2.12 states that: “An umpire may alter any decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire’s decision, once made, is final.”

This provoked debate over what constitutes a “prompt” alteration and whether reflecting on a decision over the lunch break fulfils that criteria. Whilst highly unusual, it is not completely unheard of for a player to be called back over the course of a lunch break, most famously happening in 2011 when MS Dhoni recalled Ian Bell after he had been run out. Though in that case, according to the laws, Bell was definitely out only to be recalled to the crease by India captain MS Dhoni.

Meanwhile, in Johannesburg, it emerged that South Africa captain Dean Elgar and team manager Volvo Masubelele had been to see the umpires to discuss whether van der Dussen would be able to recalled. However, due to no “conclusive” evidence being available that an incorrect decision had been made, the on-field decision would stand.

Elgar and Masubelele were with the Umpires for 10 minutes. Now chatting to Boucher. Judging by everyone's body language I don't think whatever they were asking for regarding RvdD's 'dismissal' has gone in their favour.

— stuart hess (@shockerhess) January 4, 2022

“Essentially,” explained Pommie Mbangwa on commentary, “had there been conclusive evidence that the catch didn’t carry. And then we had the [lunch] break and the umpires saw it during the break. What they could do, or what they would do, is take that to the opposition captain to go and say ‘would you like to withdraw your appeal’. Only then, if the captain was to say ‘yes’ would they be able to say to Rassie van der Dussen, or whoever it is, that he could come back in to begin the next session. It’s not happening though. Because it wasn’t conclusive.”