There are many recurring themes in this game and one of them, the use of technology to assist the umpires, has reared its head again at Headingley. On the field on Friday we had two disputed catches; off it we had a heated discussion. One thing we did not have was consensus.

With the first incident, which involved Andrew Strauss, it was easy to show via television replays that AB de Villiers had not caught the ball cleanly as first suggested. We heard subsequently that he had asked his nearby colleagues in the slip cordon, “Did it carry?” and was assured that indeed it had. It was the wrong question to ask. Yes, the ball had indeed carried, but had he caught it? No, the ball had bounced out of one hand onto the ground and into the other hand. De Villiers is not one to claim a catch he did not take and the finger needs to be pointed at those around him, none of whom were able to bring themselves to say that the ball had hit the ground. With the referral to the third umpire all was well and the correct decision was reached.

Michael Vaughan at the time was shown on the balcony looking suitably indignant but was then at the centre of the next incident later in the day. Things this time were far from straightforward and the slow-mo and high-mo (technically even slower) pictures clouded, rather than solved, the issue.

This is the inherent problem with trying to solve a three-dimensional problem with a two-dimensional picture. The long lens distorts and invariably makes low catches look far more dubious than they really are. When such decisions were first allowed to be referred to the third umpire there was a season in Australia when every such “catch” was given not out, yet virtually all the fielders concerned would have sworn on their children’s lives that the ball had carried. We can assume that very nearly all should have been out.

Vaughan’s catch looked to be in good order initially. At full speed it looked out. The umpire Billy Bowden was in a great position to see it clearly, crouching low a few yards away and he nodded almost immediately at Hashim Amla to signify that he was out. Then came the slow-mo replay and the first doubts. I am not surprised that coach Mickey Arthur was quickly out of his seat and urging Amla to stay on the field but I am not sure that ethically he should have been allowed to. The playing conditions certainly bar the players from urging the umpires to go to the third umpire but do not specifically mention coaches. The principle has to be that the umpires alone make that decision. Despite the teams rejecting the chance to use an official referral system during this series, it seems that when it suits that is what they want anyway, and in my book a referral is a referral, whichever way you get to it. With the regulations as they are, at least the bits of them which are still in use, the question ‘Has the ball carried?’ can still be answered but not ‘Has the batsman hit it?’

My view was that Vaughan had caught it. Sky tried before play yesterday to demonstrate how the ball can look to be on the ground to the long lens when in fact it is safely in a fielder’s hands. The method of Vaughan’s catch, with a dive involved, left it open to suspicion that the ball might have just touched the grass. In our commentary box there was little agreement. I can sympathise with the third umpire and understand there was enough doubt for him to deny the catch.

So here is the key question: should we return to the days when players were trusted to say if a catch was good or should we be heading for greater use of TV pictures to help in the decision making? The answer has to be a bit of both, including selective use of the latter, which could be extended from its current scope to include a second look to check on whether a batsman has hit the ball for a catch or inside-edged it when the arms are up for an lbw appeal.

Yet for low catches I suspect you will actually get the right answer more often by letting the players police themselves. If the pictures then prove otherwise, the shame may make them think hard before doing it again.