A moment of controversy erupted during the ongoing World Test Championship (WTC) final between South Africa and Australia when Australian fielders Steve Smith and Usman Khawaja appealed for a 'handling the ball' dismissal against South African batter David Bedingham. The incident occurred on Day 2 of the high-stakes match at Lord's, leaving players, umpires, and commentators alike debating the legitimacy of the appeal.

The event unfolded during the 49th over of South Africa's innings, bowled by Australia's Beau Webster. Bedingham, attempting a drive, managed only an inside edge, and the ball became lodged in his pad. Australian wicketkeeper Alex Carey moved swiftly to collect the ball, but Bedingham reacted quickly, removing the ball from his pad with his hand and dropping it onto the ground. This prompted immediate appeals from Smith, who was standing in the slips, and Khawaja, who felt that the batter had illegally handled the ball.

The on-field umpires, Richard Illingworth and Chris Gaffaney, convened to discuss the appeal. After a brief consultation, they ultimately decided to turn down the appeal, deeming Bedingham 'not out.'

The umpires' decision hinged on interpretation of the laws regarding 'obstructing the field,' which now encompasses what was formerly known as 'handling the ball'. Law 37.3.1 of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) Laws of Cricket states that a batter can be given out for obstructing the field if they "willfully prevent a fielder from catching the ball".

Commentators weighed in on the incident, with former Australian opener Matthew Hayden offering his perspective from the commentary box. Hayden stated that, in his view, the ball should be considered dead once it becomes lodged in the batter's equipment. This interpretation aligns with MCC Rule 20.1.1, which stipulates that "the ball becomes dead when... it becomes trapped between the bat and person of a batter or between items of his/her clothing or equipment."

The decision sparked considerable debate among cricket fans and analysts. Many questioned whether Bedingham's action was a deliberate attempt to prevent a catch, or simply a natural reaction. Others pointed to the fact that the ball was technically 'dead' when dislodged from his pad, thus negating the appeal.

This isn't the first time a 'handling the ball' incident has caused controversy in cricket. Previously, the law was interpreted and applied differently, with less emphasis on the batter's intent. Bedingham's case highlights the nuanced nature of the current law and the importance of the umpires' judgment in determining whether a batter has willfully obstructed the field.

Ultimately, the umpires' decision stood, and Bedingham continued his innings. The incident, however, served as a reminder of the complexities and occasional controversies that can arise even within the framework of cricket's established rules, adding another layer of drama to the already intense WTC final. At lunch on Day 2, Bedingham remained not out on 39, having shared a valuable partnership with captain Temba Bavuma, helping South Africa recover from a shaky start.