It happens time and again that winning sides get the rub of the green. Australia certainly did so as far as umpiring decisions are concerned when they wiped out Andrew Flintoff’s side in 2006-07, but the boot was emphatically on the other foot over the weekend.

Ravi Bopara failed to make the most of his reprieve on Saturday but the Australians could complain about three of the first four wickets yesterday as England pressed on, perhaps, towards their first win against Australia at Lord’s since the average house price in Britain was £515.

In 1934 no one would have known that the ball sliced to gully by Simon Katich was, by about an inch, a no-ball; or that there was any doubt about the low slip catch taken by Andrew Strauss to dismiss the technically incompetent Phillip Hughes. Nor would anyone except Mike Hussey have known that he had not touched the ball as he attempted to off-drive Graeme Swann and it spun out of the rough into slip’s hands.

It looked for all the world like an outside edge.

In a more innocent age, when fielders accepted a batsman’s word and vice versa, justice was probably done more often than it is in these days of sophisticated technology. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive, said Walter Scott in his wisdom. The reason most professional and many amateur batsmen no longer walk is because, in the mists of time, one or two failed to do so when they knew they were out.

Once umpires became aware that they could no longer trust the players, they were inevitably required to make decisions on incidents that they could only imperfectly see or hear. So they made mistakes, equally inevitably. When television replays and close-ups became possible, all this human frailty and professional ruthlessness became multiplied many times.

Australia could legitimately complain about the apparent inconsistency of the umpires when it came to their referrals to the third umpire. Yesterday the two match officials decided between themselves that Strauss had made a clean catch when Hughes edged low to first slip. Had they referred it to the third umpire when Hughes, so instructed by his captain, did not walk, the replays were such that the television official, Nigel Llong, might easily have ruled the catch uncertain and Hughes would probably have been reprieved, just as Bopara had been on the third afternoon after a referral.

It has been proved that two-dimensional television pictures often deceive on these occasions. Seen at normal speed from the bowler’s end, it looked like a low but clean catch and it probably was. But Ricky Ponting was given out in the first innings when Rudi Koertzen consulted Llong about whether or not the ball had carried to Strauss at slip. In fact he could and probably should have been adjudged leg-before, but Koertzen understandably thought that Ponting had got an inside edge rather than clipping his boot with his bat as the ball cannoned to slip.

Contrary to general belief, however, the ICC’s playing conditions for Test cricket clearly allow the third umpire to advise his colleague on the field if he is under a misconception such as this. Condition 3.2.3 on “caught decisions” states: “Should both umpires be unable to make a decision, they may consult by two-way radio with the third umpire. Following such consultation, the final decision will be made and given by the bowler’s end umpire, who will take into account the on-field umpires’ initial views and any other advice received from the third umpire. The third umpire has to determine whether the batsman has been caught. However, when reviewing the television replay(s), if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball, he shall indicate that the batsman is not out.”

The ICC decided this month to resume the system that allows each side to make up to three referrals to the third umpire, despite its all too public failure to produce the right verdict on a number of occasions in the Caribbean last winter. When that system returns in October, it will again be the case that the the TV umpire will be obliged to pass on “any factual information which may help in the decision-making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the on-field umpire’s questions”.

The third official, indeed, will be encouraged “to notify the on-field umpire of conclusive evidence of other modes of dismissal, beyond that initially reviewed”. In other words, he could say in the Ponting case that he was leg-before, not caught. Oh what a tangled web.