Third umpire Simon Fry's reading of whether Jordan's bat was touching the ground might well have paid scant regard to cricket's "benefit of the doubt" clause. Former England captains Michael Vaughan and Ian Botham were among those incensed that, from the available footage, Fry could be absolutely certain the willow was airborne.

Yet surely the greater miscarriage is how the game's laws can allow a batsman who has already reached safe ground to be given out because his bat is no longer touching the turf at the moment the ball strikes the stumps.

Commentator and former Australian captain Mark Taylor said on Tuesday the tricky issue of territory was sure to be raised when the ICC's cricket committee, of which he is a member, meets in Mumbai in May. Their conversations will include whether an amendment made to rule 29 five years ago went far enough.

"That's probably a fair way of putting it – morally not out, but to the letter of the law at the moment, it's out," Taylor said of Jordan's dismissal, which came with England seven wickets down against Bangladesh and needing 38 more runs off 28 balls to keep its World Cup hopes alive.

After setting off for a single, Jordan was sent back and dived to beat Shakib Al Hasan's throw from short cover. His bat clearly reached safe ground, and slid along the turf for roughly half a metre before bouncing into the air as his body landed in its wake. Umpire Fry judged the bat to be in the air as Shakib's throw hit the stumps.

The sub-section (law 29.1) added to the run out law by the Marylebone Cricket Club in 2010 was designed "to give more protection to a batsman who has clearly made his ground". It states that once a batsman has grounded his foot behind the popping crease, and continues running past the stumps, he is deemed safe "even if both feet and bat are airborne when the wicket is put down".

This is an anomaly that needs to be corrected. When running between the wickets, every cricketer is taught to use their bat to reach for safety. As long as the bat is in the batsman's hand, it is considered equal to the foot or any other body part when seeking safety.

If safe ground has been reached, and the batsman's momentum is obviously continuing in that direction rather than changing to potentially take another run, why should a bat lifting off the ground be viewed differently to a foot?

"[If] you put your foot down, and maybe jump to avoid the ball you're OK, but if your bat is grounded and then bounces up it's considered out," Taylor notes. "I think that's where the issue is."

A year ago, in a Twenty20 international at the MCG, Eoin Morgan was run out in almost identical fashion to Jordan. Similar questions were asked, prompting MCC laws manager Fraser Stewart to release a statement flagging the possibility of a further change to law 29, but adding that the law-makers "won't rush into it".

Stewart cited a batsman's heel lifting momentarily in a stumping, and remaining behind the popping crease but not grounded when the wicketkeeper removed the bails, as a "parallel situation to the diving situation". Yet in this scenario the batsman is moving out of rather than into safe ground, a simple distinction for the third umpire to make.

While we're obsessing over the popping crease, it could also be argued that a bowler's heel landing before the white line shouldn't constitute a legal delivery if it has slid sufficiently that no part of the foot is behind the crease when the ball leaves the hand. Perhaps that's an argument of slim lines and fine margins for another Mumbai meeting.

For now, it's time to take law 29 all the way across the line. England may well have been out regardless, but Chris Jordan shouldn't have been.