Marques Ackerman’s Newlands Test Dismissal: Why His DRS Review Was Denied

Marques Ackerman’s disputed dismissal came on Thursday, October 29, 2026, on day three of South Africa’s third Test against Australia at Newlands in Cape Town. Mitchell Starc’s sharply rising delivery grazed Ackerman’s glove, struck his helmet grille, and carried to Cameron Green at gully. Ackerman was given out for 62, but his attempt to request a Decision Review System (DRS) review was rejected because the 15-second window had expired. Subsequent television replays indicated that the ball had touched his glove, supporting the original caught decision.

The incident happened in Cape Town, which observes South Africa Standard Time (SAST, UTC+02:00). The precise clock time of the delivery has not been independently verified. The important distinction is that the controversy concerned the timing of Ackerman’s review request, not a confirmed mistake in the caught decision.

What exactly happened to Ackerman on day three?

Ackerman, a left-handed South African opener, was rebuilding the innings after Australia established a 100-run first-innings lead. He and captain Temba Bavuma added 64 runs for the third wicket, with Ackerman batting positively despite the pressure of the series decider.

1. Starc bowled a bouncer that climbed sharply toward Ackerman’s head.
2. As Ackerman tried to deal with the ball, it brushed his top glove, hit the face grille of his helmet, and flew to Green, who completed the catch.
3. The on-field umpire gave Ackerman out, caught Green, bowled Starc, for 62 from 80 balls, including eight fours.
4. Ackerman consulted Bavuma and signaled for a review just as the DRS countdown expired. The umpires declined to send the decision upstairs.

Cricket Australia’s day-three report from Newlands describes the glove contact, the helmet impact, and the late review signal. Its account says television footage later confirmed the glove graze.

Why did the helmet contact not cancel the catch?

In cricket, a ball touching a batter’s glove on a hand holding the bat counts as touching the bat. That matters here: if the ball had struck only Ackerman’s helmet without first making qualifying contact with his bat or glove, the basis for a caught dismissal would have been different.

The reported sequence was glove first, helmet second, and then a completed catch by Green. The helmet did not erase the earlier glove contact. The Marylebone Cricket Club’s official definitions of the bat and protective equipment explain why a glove worn on a hand holding the bat is treated as part of the bat.

This is why the scoreboard records the wicket as c Cameron Green b Mitchell Starc, rather than as a helmet-only deflection. The ICC’s official match scorecard confirms the dismissal and Ackerman’s 62.

Why was Ackerman’s DRS request refused?

Under the ICC’s Player Review protocol for Test cricket, a batter generally has 15 seconds to request a review using the familiar T-shaped arm signal. The batter may speak to the non-striker, but that consultation still has to fit inside the permitted window. The officials can decline a request they judge to be late.

Ackerman had just been struck around the helmet area by a fast bouncer, making the situation particularly uncomfortable. He appeared to be weighing whether the ball had touched his glove and spoke with Bavuma before signaling at the deadline. The umpires ruled that the signal came too late.

The ICC’s published Player Review rules set out the 15-second limit and the requirement to signal in time. A delayed request does not automatically mean the underlying out decision is incorrect. Equally, the fact that replays supported the wicket does not eliminate reasonable questions about how a countdown should be handled immediately after a helmet impact.

Was this the same dismissal that denied Ackerman a century?

No. That was a separate wicket in South Africa’s first innings on Tuesday, October 27. Ackerman made 95 from 94 balls, helping Aiden Markram (78) put on a 158-run opening partnership. He advanced toward off-spinner Nathan Lyon, missed the ball, and was stumped by Australian wicketkeeper Alex Carey, five runs short of his first Test hundred.

The two wickets are easy to confuse because they occurred in the same Test and both ended promising innings. Their scorebook descriptions are different:

For the opening-day context, see Cricket Australia’s first-day report.

Why did the wicket matter so much to the Test?

The match was the deciding contest in a three-Test series tied at 1–1. South Africa had posted 329 in its first innings, but Australia replied with 429, including Josh Inglis’s 102, to take a 100-run lead. Ackerman’s second-innings counterattack gave the home side a route back into the match.

When Ackerman fell, South Africa was still five runs behind. Nathan Lyon later bowled Bavuma for 35, and the hosts finished day three on 140 for four, leading by only 40 runs. Matthew Breetzke and Ryan Rickelton remained at the crease. Australia had regained the initiative, but the match was not over at that point. The ICC’s day-three report confirms that position.

So was the controversial decision wrong?

The available evidence supports separating two questions. On the dismissal itself, replays reported by Cricket Australia showed glove contact before the ball struck the helmet, so the caught decision had a factual basis. On the attempted review, officials refused Ackerman’s signal as out of time under the DRS procedure.

Whether officials should have allowed additional consideration after the helmet impact is a different debate from whether Ackerman actually edged the ball. There is no verified evidence in the sources cited here that the wicket was overturned or that the match officials subsequently admitted a rules error. For readers following the story, the official scorecard and any later ICC or match-referee statement are better checks than claims based on a single replay frame.