Australia captain Steve Smith's action to seek dressing-room inputs for a crucial review, best described as a 'brain-fade', strikes many as being against the spirit of the game. But is it cheating if there is no underhanded intent involved? | G.P. Sampath Kumar

Many hold the viewpoint that Australian captain Steve Smith did indeed cheat in Bengaluru by looking towards the dressing room before asking for a review, and at least one newspaper editorialised the headline to the point of asserting that Smith was "caught cheating". This is false.

Smith was given out LBW to a shooter on middle stump in the final innings of the second Test. Smith was playing brilliantly on an extremely difficult pitch, but that ball from Umesh Yadav was fast, straight, on a length, and virtually unplayable. Had Smith missed it altogether it would have crashed into the middle or middle stump about a 1/4th of the way up. In that one delivery, Australia’s position in the match had gone from being challenging to desperate.

With one review in hand, Smith considered whether or not to use it. His partner Peter Handscomb pointed to the Australian dressing room, and the Australian captain appeared to seek an opinion about the merit of a taking a review from there.

The rules governing the Player Review mechanism of DRS allow the umpires to decline a player’s request for a review if they believe that input has been received from beyond the boundary. As stated in Appendix 1, 3.2(c) of the ICC Playing Handbook:

“The captain may consult with the bowler and other fielders or the two batsmen may consult with each other prior to deciding whether to request a Player Review. Under no circumstances is any player permitted to query an umpire about any aspect of a decision before deciding on whether or not to request a Player Review. If the umpires believe that the captain or batsman has received direct or indirect input emanating other than from the players on the field, then they may at their discretion decline the request for a Player Review. In particular, signals from the dressing room must not be given.”

The rules prohibit signals from the dressing room. The rules also explicitly prohibit players from asking the umpire about any aspect of a decision before deciding on whether or not to request a player review. On the second day at Bangalore, Ishant Sharma had an LBW appeal turned down by Richard Illingworth, who refused to answer his questions about why the appeal was turned down since India still had reviews in hand and might still have chosen to use one.

If Smith’s actions amounted to cheating, then so did Sharma’s. Neither Smith, nor Sharma were cheating. They were seeking an opinion using methods which were illegal. But there was nothing underhanded about this. Handscomb openly pointed to the dressing room. Then Smith raised a question in that direction. Umpire Llong saw this and moved swiftly to put a stop to it. Similarly, umpire Illingworth declined Sharma’s illegal request for explanation about an LBW appeal.

There are many areas in cricket where players perform illegal actions. Not all of these constitute cheating. For instance, bowling a third bouncer in an over is not cheating even though it is illegal. Umpires declare bouncers and provide both batsman and bowler with a count of the number of bouncers delivered in an over. So it is always clear to the bowler when two bouncers have been counted. Similarly, a bowler running on the pitch in a follow-through is not cheating. Nor is a batsman running on the pitch while taking a run. In both these cases, the umpire talks to player, and usually the player desists. Smith did the same thing here. He was told he couldn't do what he was doing, and he walked off. Later, he agreed that it was a “brain fade”.

Cheating does occur in the game. A batsman who does not walk when he knows he's out is cheating. A wicketkeeper who appeals when he knows the batsman is not out is cheating too. Both these actions involve trying to cheat the umpire. Sneakily trying to tamper with the ball is cheating too. Cheating requires subterfuge — an underhanded attempt to gain an advantage. In this case, there was none of this. Was it a mistake? Of course. But that’s why it was put right by the umpires.

Is it right to say that the visiting captain was “caught cheating” on the last day at Chinnaswamy Stadium? Given that it was definitely not correct, or fair, it is probably not right either.

(This article has been corrected for a misidentification. The bowler who appealed to Richard Illingworth was in fact Ishant Sharma, and not Umesh Yadav as wrongly stated earlier. The author regrets the error.)