Explained: What is the "ball change" controversy in 1st England-Sri Lanka Test? Did it affect the game's result? 

If the entire English pundit contingent isn't defending but is instead completely against a debatable on-field action by the England team against Sri Lanka, you just know that that action deserves to be debated, again and again, till a solution is found.

The rare incident happened in the first Test against Sri Lanka at Old Trafford. On the fourth day, with Sri Lanka batting to save the Test, with Angelo Mathews and Kamindu Mendis batting on 59 and 33 respectively, with the score at 146-4.

Sri Lanka had a slender lead, but the partnership was going strong and almost flawlessly without any half chances on offer for England. The hosts had even unsuccessfully tried the typical short-ball ploy, but Mathews and Mendis saw it off with relative ease too.

However, what that barrage of bouncers, mostly from Mark Wood, did was scuff and wear down the leather ball which was already 40 overs old. The pitch was mostly placid and didn't help the old ball throughout the Test, except for the occasional ones that shot low or bounced extra.

So England, at around the 41st over mark, asked the on-field umpires Chris Gaffaney and Paul Reiffel for a ball change.

They passed it through the customary hoop, as is mandated by the ICC rules, and the ball failed the test, leading to the umpires giving the green light for a switch. The fourth umpire ran in with two boxes of balls for the umpires to choose a like-for-like replacement -- as is also mandated.

Interestingly, they didn't seem to deem any ball in those boxes as good enough, with commentators revealing that they felt the balls were "too dark" i.e. in much better condition to the one they were supposed to substitute. The official ran back and brought another box, from which the replacement was eventually chosen.

This new ball wasn't the one whose images have gone viral on social media. Nasser Hussain, one of the commentators, explained that the one on social media was from the first two boxes, which wasn't chosen. Sill, the one that was chosen was in pretty mint condition. Suddenly, on a lifeless track against a flawless partnership, the ball started to jag around.

England's Matthew Potts was heard on the stump mic by Michael Atherton as telling Chris Woakes that this ball was swinging conventionally -- in the 48th over. It was only a confirmation of what was palpable even on TV screens when Mathews and Mendis were both dropped in quick succession immediately after the ball change.

Woakes, the best in England with the new ball currently, was brought back the next over. He swiung it even better than Potts and Gus Atkinson. And in the 51st over, he prized out Mathews with a nip-backer that squared him up to take the leading edge to point. He was gone for 65.

“It looked like they were running out of plans, but unfortunately the ball was changed,” Mathews told Sky Sports before the start of the fourth day’s play.

“We were told they didn’t have old enough balls to replace. It changed the entire momentum of the game. You work so hard to get rid of that shine, and we did that. Once the ball was changed, it was a whole different game.”

The ball jagged for a few more overs, but Mendis and Rathanayake survived the spell until the spinners were brought back again. Mendis went on to make a brilliant hundred, before eventually succumbing to the official second new ball.

Despite Dinesh Chandimal's brilliant half-century at the other end, Sri Lanka could put up a target of just over 200, which England chased down easily in two sessions.

Later, Mathews would also say that although it cost Sri Lanka some hard-earned momentum, the ball change had the potential to be unfair to "both teams". He said the sport needed better rules around it.

English pundits seemed to echo that statement as the action was unfolding. One said that England had gained a "reward" for a mistake (scuffing the ball up by bowling a barrage of bouncers). Kumar Sangakkara, also one of the commentators, didn't seem to take this switch in the game well either.

---

Did the ball change affect the result of the England-Sri Lanka game?

Its's hard to argue against that. England were the much better team till Mathews and Mendis put up that brilliant stand.

However, when things started going against them for the first time in the Test, they could turn it around without any hard work. It was just the use of a loophole - that there weren't any old balls in the three boxes.

That's a lazy excuse from match officials. It's difficult to create rules around such a subjective thing. The ball can be damaged at any moment, and there's no criteria for what balls should be available with the fourth official, but you need to have at least some that resemble a used 40-60 over old ball.

Mathews could have been out even earlier with an old ball. But he was denied the chance to potentially bat 15-20 more overs with an old ball, get to his hundred and give his team a lead of 250-300.

Even that lead might have not proven to be enough, but not being potentially allowed to do that because the opposition suddenly won't play with the original ball is unfair.

Such an incident didn't happen for the first time either. In the final Ashes Test last year, a similar ball change in the middle of an innings led to an Australian collapse and a big furore in the media.

Almost every team has been on either side of such bowling changes. There are examples of sides like India demanding a bowling change in a home Test and getting a ball with much less turn on offer for their spinners than the previous one.

To put it simply, it's an outside element that's impacting the result of games. If umpires in England fail to get good old balls, teams might start to see it as a lottery where the opposition deliberately ruin the ball to try and get a better one that swings more. That would never be good for the game, in the present or the future.