NEW DELHI: Australian pacer Mitchell Starc has now opened up on the recent Snicko controversy that erupted during the Ashes series, sparking fresh debate across the cricketing fraternity over the use and consistency of decision review technology.

The discussion gathered pace after multiple contentious moments during the series. Questions were first raised following Alex Carey’s dismissal where Snicko failed to provide a clear answer on whether the ball had brushed the bat.

The backlash intensified later when Jamie Smith was involved in a similar incident, with players and fans alike voicing strong criticism over the reliability of Snicko, a tool designed to detect whether the ball has contacted the bat or any part of the batter.

Questions over consistency in technology

Speaking on the issue, Starc acknowledged the frustration surrounding such controversies and pointed out that the confusion is not limited to players alone.

“I’m sure it’s frustrating for everyone – viewers, officials, and broadcasters, no doubt,” Starc said, highlighting how repeated technology-related debates only add to the uncertainty around close calls.

The left-arm quick then turned his attention to the broader structure behind the use of Snicko, questioning why there is a lack of uniformity across international cricket.

“One thing I will say … I’m only going to speak for myself here; the officials use it, right? So why doesn’t the ICC pay for it?” he remarked, suggesting that the responsibility should lie with the global governing body.

Call for a uniform snicko system

Starc further stressed that having different providers and systems across series only adds to the problem, often leading to mixed interpretations and inconsistent outcomes.

“And why is it not just one (provider) across the board? Why don’t we use the same technology in all the different series?” he asked, underlining the need for a standardised approach.

According to Starc, a single, consistent system could go a long way in reducing confusion and easing frustration for everyone involved.

“That’s going to perhaps create less confusion, less frustration. So that’s where I’ll leave that,” he concluded.