Alec Stewart, it has to be said, was not at his fluent best during a chancy 87 yesterday – he was in control of less than two-thirds of all his shots, and reached his half-century with a streaky edge past first slip and keeper. But it was a moment of luck of a different sort – a moment that pushed the boundaries of gamesmanship – that provided the big talking point of his innings. With his score on 48, Stewart edged Ajit Agarkar towards third slip, where Virender Sehwag reached low to his left and scooped up what, at first glance, appeared to be a remarkable catch. The Indian reaction – unanimous and immediate – left little in doubt, but doubt, nonetheless, remained. The umpires had no option but to call on the TV replay.

"More and more," wrote Martin Johnson in The Daily Telegraph, "Test match cricket is becoming a bit like the American legal system. You will soon have the right to remain silent, be allowed one phone call after an appeal, and the third umpire will not be permitted to examine the TV replay without the batsman's solicitor being present."

"There was enough in the television replays, "said John Culley in The Independent, "to suggest that [Stewart] had a point, but the incident left a sour taste. His actions in effect questioned the honesty of a fielder and the competence of the umpire, matters that once would have been taken as read."

Johnson agreed: "It is a sad day when all combatants are presumed to be lying under oath unless proved otherwise. But that's the way they wanted it," he added, citing the suspicions of bias and incompetence that had been levelled at umpires over the years, "and now that's what they've got."

The controversy was heightened during the lunch break, when Dermot Reeve re-enacted the incident for the benefit of Channel 4 viewers. It had been Channel 4's own pictures that had reprieved Stewart, yet Reeve demonstrated that appearances can be deceptive - viewed from the boundary, the ball appeared to be touching the ground, but Reeve's fingers were, in fact, fully underneath it. "It's not just that the camera tells lies," wrote Paul Weaver in The Guardian, "it tells more porkies than Pinocchio."

Weaver was particularly tickled that Stewart, of all people, should be the beneficiary, remarking that India's bowlers needed an elephant gun to see the back of him: "Opponents, rival wicketkeepers and even Test selectors have occasionally felt the same way."

"His Peter Perfect image should also be referred to a third umpire," added Weaver. "because sometimes there has been a suggestion of selfishness and an over-eagerness to appeal. Sometimes he's a bit of a shop steward and, sometimes, he's too, well, Gafferish. So he's been surviving appeals, of one kind or another, all through his career."

Even Michael Atherton, acting as devil's advocate in his new role as a commentator, felt that Stewart should have gone: "A lot of the time the replays are not helpful … responsibility needs to return to the umpires." This point was taken up by Richard Hobson in The Times, who wrote that "the whole area of scientific assistance is to be discussed by officials after the ICC Champions Trophy next month."

"Two-dimensional television pictures of a three-dimensional event can be misleading," added Hobson, "with frame-by-frame replays adding doubt as a fielder tries to get his hands under the ball so close to the ground. The decision becomes even more difficult when there are shadows. There can also be a clash of colours in the case of a wicketkeeper with dark gloves."

Weaver, though, had the bit between his teeth: "Before we blame the camera we should take a careful look at the cricketers. In the future, perhaps, we should have Minority Report-style pre-cogs so that the umpires can dismiss players before they cheat."

"Either way," he concluded, "it was a good day for the Luddites."

But it was not as if the incident was a match-turner. England posted their first score of 600 in 12 years, and the Indian press (or should that be depressed?) could barely bring themselves to mention it. Wisden's own Rahul Bhattacharya, writing in The Guardian, accepted that "Stewart would probably have been out in the days of no technology," but, on a day when "England's best performers were India's bowlers," there could be little redress.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd