South Africa v England, 4th Test, Jo’burg, Jan 14-18

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:See that's the idiocy of the review system.

It's an entirely reasonable decision to give that out, not playing a shot. But because Hawekeye says no, it gets overturned. The right decision as the system is structured, but he's left a straight one basically - he doesn't remotely deserve to be reprieved by a computer program.

Was a poor decision in the first place

Don't remotely see how you can say that. It was a straight ball and he left it. Sod off for being a cretin and not playing a shot. Use the bat.

You argued 2 matches ago that Boucher shouldn't have been given out. With the bounch and turn Swann was getting there is no way the umpire could be sure that was hitting.

Yep, indeed. Difference isn't in my complaint about the system, it's that on that occasion Boucher was playing a shot. It's more about the fact that batsmen who leave straightish balls should be automatically gunned in my view - I have not a shred of sympathy for them. If they're so sure it's missing why put the pad in the way in the first place? So if they pad up and Hawkeye suggests it might be just missing, tough titty - use the bat.

So if AB had played a forward defensive and the ball beat the bat you would have said not out?

Yep. 'Cos in that case even if Hawkeye had said it was hitting there would have been loads of doubt. Say he'd been playing a shot and it had been given out and the ball was hitting, then that would have been upheld even though that would have been a poor decision. Which is madness, because it would have been a poor decision that far forward - the umpire would have been guessing, and the batsman should get the benefit of plenty of doubt.

If the bloke doesn't bother to play a shot though, he doesn't deserve the benefit of any doubt at all. If the ump reckons it was hitting, out you go.

So hang on a minute. Tony Hill gave a batsman out caught behind off the glove, the batsman asked for a review and Harper overturned the decision, and yet replays suggest the ball DID hit the glove?

Ooooooohhhhh deeeear.

Henry wrote:So hang on a minute. Tony Hill gave a batsman out caught behind off the glove, the batsman asked for a review and Harper overturned the decision, and yet replays suggest the ball DID hit the glove?

Ooooooohhhhh deeeear.

Well, look - the reason why that one is now controversial is because of what happened yesterday with Smith.

It's fair to say that you would query what evidence Harper had for overturning the decision, but it was a difficult one to decide on. Perhaps he shouldn't have overturned it, but it's what's gone on before that is getting the likes of the commentators hot under the collar.

And I'll say it again - Harper doesn't have an HD feed. Hard to credit I know, but it's true.

Daryl Harper doesn't seem to have eyes either. In fact, I have a strong suspicion that he's a vegetable.

Trev bucking for honorary subi status

I honestly can't see a deflection off glove or bat on those replays. Again, it probably shouldn't have been overturned because there's no evidence that he didn't hit it, but I've got to be honest, when others are saying they see a deflection, I just don't.

FFS. England will be steaming about all these decisions going against them. That should have been given out caught.

It's cloudy and sidebum's suddenly more effective.

how many reviews is one team allowed per innings btw or is there a quota for a whole match ?

This is a complete farce. Harper fails to give Smith out when he takes the case of it.

Then in their shambolic back-tracking the ICC officials try to find an excuse for a blatent unpardonable error - first the host broadcaster gave him the wrong feed, when that doesn't fly they try the 'volume wasn't adjusted correctly' trick. The fact is Harper is plain incompetant. He failed to do his job. Rather than accept this mistake they then come out with this bizarre statement -

"The third umpire, when reviewing the decision, used a range of technologies that were made available to him by the host broadcaster, including the slow-motion replays, amplified stump microphone sound (at normal speed and slow motion), approved ball-tracking technology and pitch mat generated by the ball-tracking technology.

"During the review, the TV umpire followed the correct protocol and as he did not hear any noise to indicate the ball hitting the bat, he recommended Mr Hill to uphold his earlier decision. It must be noted that umpire's decision is final.

"There have also been suggestions in a section of the press that Mr Harper had turned down the feed volume. It is clarified that the volume on the third umpire's feed, right throughout the series, had been configured to optimise the quality of the audio, by both an SABC Head Engineer and the ICC technical advisor.

How could he possibly not hear it then? Is he deaf?

He (Roshan Mahanama) then ends the statement with this:

"In the end, it must be remembered that there needs to be conclusive evidence to over-turn the decision of the on-field umpire as the Decision Review System has been designed to eliminate the obvious umpiring errors."

Conclusive evidence? Mahanma seems to have interpreted the ICC directive wrongly which talks about 'a high degree of confidence'

So - fast forward to today - Swann to de Villiers, caught at leg slip - umpire gives it out. De Villiers appeals the decision. Replays show the ball brushing the glove before a suggestion of a deflection as the back of the bat sweeps round. Easy. All Harper needs to confirm is there is not 'conclusive evidence' that De Villiers didn't hit it - there clearly is none. Harper cannot say with any confidence that de Villiers did not hit it.

And then he overturns the decision and gives it not out. Bizarre, inexplicable and totally peverse from an umpire completely out of his depth.

They've made a rod for their own back with that statement.

Scores are heading towards the predicted 340, hope Swanny makes a clean sweep of the remaining wickets.

Even sibotty will be effective if the clouds stick around.

rain storm is supposedly an hour away.

As a side note de Villiers has got a brass neck asking for a review when he knows he's hit it - the fact he can rely on Harper's incompetence to overturn is telling.

Gary 111 wrote:As a side note de Villiers has got a brass neck asking for a review when he knows he's hit it - the fact he can rely on Harper's incompetence to overturn is telling.

Mmmm, well watching the replays over lunch, I've possibly changed my mind a bit on it. It looks like it does hit the bat and the ball changes direction. It could be my imagination though, I'm really not sure.

Whether it should have been overturned anyway is a separate issue.

now 400 is looking the more probably option. Storm clouds is predicted in one hour's time.

Shoeshine wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:As a side note de Villiers has got a brass neck asking for a review when he knows he's hit it - the fact he can rely on Harper's incompetence to overturn is telling.

Mmmm, well watching the replays over lunch, I've possibly changed my mind a bit on it. It looks like it does hit the bat and the ball changes direction. It could be my imagination though, I'm really not sure.

Whether it should have been overturned anyway is a separate issue.

I reckon if Harper didn't hear a noise he should overturn it.

Ever since the no-ball on Thursday he's been hiding under his desk with his head in his hands, pencils stuck in his ears, whilst sobbing uncontrollably mind. So he won't hear much down there.

de Villiers chips Broad to mid on - decides against the appeal this time.

Storm's coming in.

Watching Bumble crap himself every time there's a clap of thunder is hugely entertaining.

HS by Boucher on this ground beating his 64 v. England 5 years ago.

Wicket! Boucher out before hitting a century. No declaration from SA.

Interesting they've batted on so long. If the weather is poor in the next couple of days they might rue that.

Highest total by South Africa v. England on this ground beating 419 5 years ago. 14th instance of a wicketkeeper being dismissed in the 90s v. England. Previous instance - Brendon McCullum's 97 at Lord's in May 2008.

Declared. England 243 behind.