Do you watch the Wicket keeper?

[Erno R]

Wholly behind the wicket is indeed a bit further backwards than the bowling crease. POP4 was a No ball as he is not wholly behind the wicket. A bit disappointing to make such a survey and claim how bad the people have judged when the maker makes his own laws.
For example if the wicketkeeper touches the wicket and a bail falls off then he was by definition not behind the wicket but COULD have been behind the bowling crease but in this case a No ball should be called. That is the reason that the Law speaks about behind the wicket so that touching the stumps is illegal and a no ball.

[sillypoint]

Taking a second look at POP4, although I initially gave this as legal in the initial view—from the popping crease—the second view, from the bowling crease, shows the tips of the gloves are NOT wholly behind the wicket. That extra 18mm makes all the difference.

[Acumen]

England wicketkeeper Jos Buttler caught Pakistan's middle-order batsman Fawad Alam from a ball delivered by off-break bowler Dom Bess during the third day's play in the third test in Southampton on Sunday, however, images circulated on-line suggest square leg umpire Richard Illingworth should have called a no ball. Two images in
www.crictracker.com/fawad-alams-dismissal-under-controversy-after-it-appeared-to-be-a-no-ball/
show that Alam had not yet received the ball yet Buttler's gloves are past his side of the stumps, Law 27.3.1 saying something he can't do until the ball either, "touches the bat or person of the striker; or passes the wicket at the striker's end; or the striker attempts a run. Illingworth was on the opposite side of the stumps from Buttler's gloved hands, while the focus of his colleague Richard Kettleborough in the television chair would have been focused on whether or not Bess' front foot landed appropriately.