On the fourth day at The Kia Oval – on which just three Leicestershire wickets fell – play came to a halt when the umpires inspected the state of the ball before engaging in a conversation with Surrey captain Rory Burns. Play was delayed for a few minutes in the 35th over of the Leicestershire innings before a replacement ball was brought on to Surrey’s apparent frustration; prior to the ball change there had been some signs that the ball was reversing.

No penalty runs were added to the Leicestershire total and there were suggestions that the state of the ball may have been altered as the ball hit the advertising hoardings after a Hassan Azad boundary. However, Solanki said that Surrey were still waiting to find out whether the match referee Steve Davis would level a charge of changing the condition of the ball against his team.

After the close, Solanki said: “The discussions with the umpires and the match referee is ongoing. There’s no getting away from the fact we were frustrated, given that we were able to get a breakthrough and Jordan seemed to be finding some sort of rhythm. Frustrating would describe it well.

“We did speak about the possibility of getting the ball to reverse by trying to bowl some cross-seamers on an abrasive surface, trying now and again to try and bounce the ball in from the boundary if we got the opportunity to do so – all within what is permitted within the game. Perhaps it did just start to go, the boys were fairly adamant that nothing untoward had gone on.”

Though Surrey weren’t penalised during the game, it is still possible that they could receive a charge if the umpires felt the ball condition was altered by a player but were unclear who that player was. Law 41.2.4 of the County Championship playing conditions indicate that it is only possible to award penalty runs during a game in the first instance if the player responsible can be identified: “Regardless of whether a replacement ball has been chosen to be used, if it is possible to identify the player(s) responsible, the bowler’s end umpire shall: a) Award 5 penalty runs to the opposing side.”

Law 41.2.5 states: “If it is not possible to identify the player(s) responsible, the bowler’s end umpire shall: a) issue the captain with a first and final warning, and b) advise him that the incident will be reported to ECB and that should there be any further incident by that team during the remainder of the match, steps 41.2.4 a) to d) above will be adopted, with the captain deemed under d) to be the player responsible.”

As of Monday morning, Surrey are yet to hear anything from the ECB or the match officials about the incident.