South Africa v England, 4th Test, Johannesburg, 2nd day January 15, 2010

England lodge complaint over Smith reprieve

Cricinfo staff
31

England have announced they intend to lodge an official complaint following Graeme Smith's controversial reprieve by the third umpire, Daryl Harper, during the second day of the fourth and final Test at Johannesburg.

Smith, who top-scored for South Africa with 105, his 20th Test century, appeared to be given a let-off on 15 when he attempted a cut against Ryan Sidebottom and appeared to feather a nick through to the keeper, Matt Prior.

Although the onfield umpire, Tony Hill, initially turned down England's appeals, the captain, Andrew Strauss, immediately used one of his team's two reviews, and the TV replays seemed to indicate an audible snick as the ball passed the bat.

However, Harper upheld the onfield decision, claiming that he could not hear any noise on the replay that he was being shown in the third umpire's booth. An angry England coach, Andy Flower, claimed that this was because he had the volume too low on his television set, and confirmed that an official complaint was being made to the match referee, Roshan Mahanama.

"He has obviously hit it because you can hear the nick on the replays," said Flower. "I don't blame him for standing but certainly with the technology available and everyone can hear the nick on referral, I find it very surprising that he hasn't been given out."

Umpire Harper was at the centre of a previous review controversy involving England on their tour of the Caribbean in the spring, and Flower did not seek to mince his words. "I am not surprised he didn't hear it because he didn't turn the volume up on his speaker," he said. "I find it strange if you are listening for a nick you don't turn the volume up on your speaker."

The initial belief, among confused commentators, was that the SABC feed used by the third umpire must have come from a different source to those used by Sky and Supersport, on which the noise was clearly audible. However, after seeking clarification from Mahanama, Flower discovered that this was not the case.

"We found out that wasn't correct and one audio feed is used for everyone, and the second time [Mahanama] said that Daryl Harper had not switched up the volume on his mike and that is why we have heard the nick but the third umpire hasn't. If it wasn't such a serious match for us I would have found it amusing, I think it's very disappointing.

"They said they did not deem it necessary to turn up the volume. But in the pre-series match referees meeting both Dave Richardson from the ICC and Mahanama explained on caught-behind referrals the volume would be turned up."

For cost reasons, neither Snickometer nor HotSpot are being used in this series despite their successful application in other parts of the world, a state of affairs that Flower described as "illogical". "We were assured that, because we don't have that technology available, they would turn up the volume to listen for nicks," he added. "They didn't do that today and I find that hard to understand."

Smith, for his part, did not deny there had been a noise, but maintained that he had stood his ground with good reason. "There definitely was a noise but I didn't feel I'd touched the ball," he said. "Even talking to Ashwell [Prince] as the review was going on I didn't feel the ball hit the bat. That can happen, maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

"I thought it was my thumb on the bat handle, and I still don't feel like I hit it."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • tfjones1978 on January 17, 2010, 7:04 GMT

    Smith should not be blamed for not walking, its his duty to ensure his wicket isnt lost (Gilchrist was wrong on this. If it was still gentlemens game then he wouldnt have been suspended for a game 10 years ago for speaking his mind TO A COACH!) Nor should the third umpire be blamed he was just doing his job as he understood it. If the decision was incorrect then either he wasnt trained to use the equipment or isnt suitable for review umpire decisions However there IS NO evidence sufficient to prove that the decision was even a mistake. Traditional approach would not give this out (onfield umpire made traditionally correct call) & third umpire saw insufficient proof (unknown sound isnt proof) Several situations recently have shown where an unknown sound onfield turned out to not be bat/glove related (usually batsmen sliding his feet) Problem is players & fans are expecting 100% decision to be correct according to them. There will always be controversal decisions & always mistakes made.

  • abinanthan on January 17, 2010, 1:33 GMT

    First of all, the snickometer is not used in this match. No deflection in the ball is visible. Only the sound was present. Does a sound (presumably of an edge) alone is enough to overturn the on-filed umpire's decision? If UDRS rules say yes, then Harper is the culprit.

    BTW, Smith not walking is not at all an option here. Whay should he walk when 99% of batsmen dont? Sachin Tendulkar once said about umpire decision going against you.. if you play long enough, you will get lucky sometimes and unlucky sometimes. Law of average will equate it and no need to over react for any stand alone decision. IMO, Smith should not be blamed.

  • Vroomfondel on January 16, 2010, 22:09 GMT

    In the early days of cricket, the umpire was there to adjudicate on decisions where the batsman was uncertain - such as lbw. Smith says he does not believe he hit the ball. The umpire did not believe he did and gave him not out. The 3rd umpire did nopt believe he did and confirmed the decision. Did he hit it? I do not know but the decision was made. In cricket there are good decisions and bad decisions. That's the game. Live with it. Everybody else does so get over it England. Your whining and whingeing spoil the game.

  • -c.r-i.c-i.n-f.o- on January 16, 2010, 18:49 GMT

    Your game is what matters for you to win a match, not a bad review decision even though it wasn't. Not a fault of the umpire, the use and understanding of the technology is to be blamed cause this UDRS thing is still a little baby. Thirdly, fault of the admins they didn't use the best technology in use i've seen, the hotspot, merely for cost reasons whereas they are being used in Aus. ICC should, if they want to continue with this UDRS, should make such rules so that more perfect and same technology is being used in each test match. Now for some reasons if the poor WI or ZIM say they cant use Hawkeye, where would UDRS go? Frankly speaking, i really doubt the authenticity of the hawkeye when it comes to the height of the ball after pitching. Some times back i remember, i saw Harbhajan bowled some batsman with the ball just clipping the bails but hawkeye showed the ball positioned an inch above, not even touching. Though a marginal mistake, technology is expected to be perfect.

  • sajjodaalman on January 16, 2010, 15:42 GMT

    why do england complain about everything? when they played west indies in january, we had 3 lbw decisions given against us in one innings, all of which were clearly not out. when the batsmen referred them, replays proved this, yet the 3rd umpire did not overule the decisions. england get everything in their favour, and yet when one thing goes against them they make such a big deal about it! they have got to be the biggest cry babies in cricket.

  • Peligrosisimo3 on January 16, 2010, 12:37 GMT

    I can understand that a wrong decision can be made but i still dont understand what all the anger is about. It seems that when a test match is being played between supposedely "better test playing nations" then these things become magnified and overexaggerated. We have seen this happen countless times in tests and ODI's between "lesser" nations and the game just continues. I have seen Strauss involved in such situations and been given not out. I think that the only 2 technologies that should be used for catches behind the wicket are the replays in real time and snicko as the hotspot is sometimes or most times for these types of catches inconclusive.

  • ashtung on January 16, 2010, 11:17 GMT

    That's just stupid of Harper... If everyone else heard it, I am sure Harper is at fault... It is time the ICC asked the umpires to get professional too... How about a fee cut for them too... A 3rd umpire just cannot commit such blunders; he has all the time and reviews available... And this is not the 1st time umpires are being panned... I feel the umpires are relaxing a bit...

    @Geebs: Harper had reviews available so there is no reason why he shudn't be panned.. The whole point of reviews is not to let a wrong decision chang the fate of the match as it happened in days before snicko..

    @rustigboer: Smith wanted a runner because he was tired, not out of injury... So how was Strauss wrong there?? Strauss in fact called back a Lankan batsman who got run-out, running in to the bowler... (I am an Indian, not a Brit)

  • timbered.. on January 16, 2010, 9:54 GMT

    Now what? new technology. better decisions. No matter how much new technology they bring in, this is going to be the same case. For gods sake the administrators are just spineless. Cricket has turned from a wonderful game where no one cared about winning or losing but instead for just the satisfaction of watching how it mirrors real life. How things go against or for each other, acts of bravery grit even against tough luck. Ever since the rankings came, people only care about winning or losing as per the strict rules and regulations or laws. No more will we see the game as it was then. It has become increasingly boring and tedious to watch this ungentlemanly game anymore, but instead to look at the scorecard and feel false pride.

  • paramthegreat on January 16, 2010, 8:25 GMT

    well, in aus vs pak match, on day 2, it seemed clarke had got an underedge which was given not out and reviewed and hotspot showed no nick . So , it can sometimes be difficult to decide for sure if its the bat slashing the air or the bat hitting the ball. This happened twice to clarke and both times there was a clear audible noise as the ball passedthe bat. in all honesty , wout hotspot and snicko , it can be very very difficult to overturn the on field umpires decision. in case of smith, i definitely felt he had nicked it, he looked behind immediately and that can often be an indicating factor. even with hotspot, it can be very difficult to give an "out" decision "not out". but to give a "not out" , out is easier, since all we really need is one spot on the bat.

  • Geebs on January 16, 2010, 8:23 GMT

    There's many simple and uneducated comments here from arm-chair experts. Surely with the technology available today every Test match should be kitted out with the lot. However, given it wasn't available here then why jump on the poor Umpire when it was the Enland management who 'misleadingly told the Press that they had been advised that Umpire Harper did not turn up the volume on his mike (speaker, you idiot Flower). What rubbish! The 3rd Umpire is provided the tools and he uses them accordingly. If the ICC and the broadcaster agree on settings then what right does an Umpire have to 'fiddle' with the technology. Grow up you morons and get on with the game. What happened in the days before snicko and such ... the on-field Umpire's decision would have stood.

  • tfjones1978 on January 17, 2010, 7:04 GMT

    Smith should not be blamed for not walking, its his duty to ensure his wicket isnt lost (Gilchrist was wrong on this. If it was still gentlemens game then he wouldnt have been suspended for a game 10 years ago for speaking his mind TO A COACH!) Nor should the third umpire be blamed he was just doing his job as he understood it. If the decision was incorrect then either he wasnt trained to use the equipment or isnt suitable for review umpire decisions However there IS NO evidence sufficient to prove that the decision was even a mistake. Traditional approach would not give this out (onfield umpire made traditionally correct call) & third umpire saw insufficient proof (unknown sound isnt proof) Several situations recently have shown where an unknown sound onfield turned out to not be bat/glove related (usually batsmen sliding his feet) Problem is players & fans are expecting 100% decision to be correct according to them. There will always be controversal decisions & always mistakes made.

  • abinanthan on January 17, 2010, 1:33 GMT

    First of all, the snickometer is not used in this match. No deflection in the ball is visible. Only the sound was present. Does a sound (presumably of an edge) alone is enough to overturn the on-filed umpire's decision? If UDRS rules say yes, then Harper is the culprit.

    BTW, Smith not walking is not at all an option here. Whay should he walk when 99% of batsmen dont? Sachin Tendulkar once said about umpire decision going against you.. if you play long enough, you will get lucky sometimes and unlucky sometimes. Law of average will equate it and no need to over react for any stand alone decision. IMO, Smith should not be blamed.

  • Vroomfondel on January 16, 2010, 22:09 GMT

    In the early days of cricket, the umpire was there to adjudicate on decisions where the batsman was uncertain - such as lbw. Smith says he does not believe he hit the ball. The umpire did not believe he did and gave him not out. The 3rd umpire did nopt believe he did and confirmed the decision. Did he hit it? I do not know but the decision was made. In cricket there are good decisions and bad decisions. That's the game. Live with it. Everybody else does so get over it England. Your whining and whingeing spoil the game.

  • -c.r-i.c-i.n-f.o- on January 16, 2010, 18:49 GMT

    Your game is what matters for you to win a match, not a bad review decision even though it wasn't. Not a fault of the umpire, the use and understanding of the technology is to be blamed cause this UDRS thing is still a little baby. Thirdly, fault of the admins they didn't use the best technology in use i've seen, the hotspot, merely for cost reasons whereas they are being used in Aus. ICC should, if they want to continue with this UDRS, should make such rules so that more perfect and same technology is being used in each test match. Now for some reasons if the poor WI or ZIM say they cant use Hawkeye, where would UDRS go? Frankly speaking, i really doubt the authenticity of the hawkeye when it comes to the height of the ball after pitching. Some times back i remember, i saw Harbhajan bowled some batsman with the ball just clipping the bails but hawkeye showed the ball positioned an inch above, not even touching. Though a marginal mistake, technology is expected to be perfect.

  • sajjodaalman on January 16, 2010, 15:42 GMT

    why do england complain about everything? when they played west indies in january, we had 3 lbw decisions given against us in one innings, all of which were clearly not out. when the batsmen referred them, replays proved this, yet the 3rd umpire did not overule the decisions. england get everything in their favour, and yet when one thing goes against them they make such a big deal about it! they have got to be the biggest cry babies in cricket.

  • Peligrosisimo3 on January 16, 2010, 12:37 GMT

    I can understand that a wrong decision can be made but i still dont understand what all the anger is about. It seems that when a test match is being played between supposedely "better test playing nations" then these things become magnified and overexaggerated. We have seen this happen countless times in tests and ODI's between "lesser" nations and the game just continues. I have seen Strauss involved in such situations and been given not out. I think that the only 2 technologies that should be used for catches behind the wicket are the replays in real time and snicko as the hotspot is sometimes or most times for these types of catches inconclusive.

  • ashtung on January 16, 2010, 11:17 GMT

    That's just stupid of Harper... If everyone else heard it, I am sure Harper is at fault... It is time the ICC asked the umpires to get professional too... How about a fee cut for them too... A 3rd umpire just cannot commit such blunders; he has all the time and reviews available... And this is not the 1st time umpires are being panned... I feel the umpires are relaxing a bit...

    @Geebs: Harper had reviews available so there is no reason why he shudn't be panned.. The whole point of reviews is not to let a wrong decision chang the fate of the match as it happened in days before snicko..

    @rustigboer: Smith wanted a runner because he was tired, not out of injury... So how was Strauss wrong there?? Strauss in fact called back a Lankan batsman who got run-out, running in to the bowler... (I am an Indian, not a Brit)

  • timbered.. on January 16, 2010, 9:54 GMT

    Now what? new technology. better decisions. No matter how much new technology they bring in, this is going to be the same case. For gods sake the administrators are just spineless. Cricket has turned from a wonderful game where no one cared about winning or losing but instead for just the satisfaction of watching how it mirrors real life. How things go against or for each other, acts of bravery grit even against tough luck. Ever since the rankings came, people only care about winning or losing as per the strict rules and regulations or laws. No more will we see the game as it was then. It has become increasingly boring and tedious to watch this ungentlemanly game anymore, but instead to look at the scorecard and feel false pride.

  • paramthegreat on January 16, 2010, 8:25 GMT

    well, in aus vs pak match, on day 2, it seemed clarke had got an underedge which was given not out and reviewed and hotspot showed no nick . So , it can sometimes be difficult to decide for sure if its the bat slashing the air or the bat hitting the ball. This happened twice to clarke and both times there was a clear audible noise as the ball passedthe bat. in all honesty , wout hotspot and snicko , it can be very very difficult to overturn the on field umpires decision. in case of smith, i definitely felt he had nicked it, he looked behind immediately and that can often be an indicating factor. even with hotspot, it can be very difficult to give an "out" decision "not out". but to give a "not out" , out is easier, since all we really need is one spot on the bat.

  • Geebs on January 16, 2010, 8:23 GMT

    There's many simple and uneducated comments here from arm-chair experts. Surely with the technology available today every Test match should be kitted out with the lot. However, given it wasn't available here then why jump on the poor Umpire when it was the Enland management who 'misleadingly told the Press that they had been advised that Umpire Harper did not turn up the volume on his mike (speaker, you idiot Flower). What rubbish! The 3rd Umpire is provided the tools and he uses them accordingly. If the ICC and the broadcaster agree on settings then what right does an Umpire have to 'fiddle' with the technology. Grow up you morons and get on with the game. What happened in the days before snicko and such ... the on-field Umpire's decision would have stood.

  • rustigboer on January 16, 2010, 8:13 GMT

    not so long ago i recall a certain mr strauss not allowing a certain mr smith to get a runner in a vital match. at the time i thought it was rather unsportsmanlike. this is a totally different issue but i look at it as justice!

  • CountKeelo on January 16, 2010, 7:51 GMT

    @Dileep.Iyer : "They were very very lucky all through in this series... Ideally they should've been 2 down in the series" - why wouldn't you say SA weren't good enough to finish off the 2 games or that England showed a lot of steel? That's the truth.

    Are England and Aus the most hated teams in the comment sections ? A lot of the comments ( not necessarily on this article ) ridicule the Eng cricket team despite decent show in the last few years.

    The point being made here is if it was audible for the folks in the comm box...

    A 1-1 result for this series would be most acceptable, given how hard both teams have fought.

  • Ajay42 on January 16, 2010, 7:40 GMT

    The whole point about these referrals is having the best technology available- without Hotspot,one is still guessing. And Harper is an ass for admitting that he hadnt turned he volume up. If a sound is not an indicator of a fine nick, then why bother with a referral at all?

  • AJ_Tiger86 on January 16, 2010, 7:29 GMT

    Graeme Smith and the South Africans should be ashamed of themselves after this incident. During the champions trophy, Strauss got a lot of heat for not allowing Smith a runner even though he did nothing against the rules. Then at Cape Town, the Saffers made a false accusation against Broad and Anderson of ball-tempering. But now, when they themselves are cheating, the SA fans are still blaming England. This is pathetic.

  • jadhavkedars on January 16, 2010, 7:23 GMT

    I have got nothing to say @ England's complaining officially was right or not . I think more serious issue is the way Smith is handling this . "Even talking to Ashwell [Prince] as the review was going on I didn't feel the ball hit the bat. That can happen, maybe it did, maybe it didn't. " :) We dont expect this from SA . I dont know how many of you saw it live , because I did and everyone who did knows that he was out (in all read all commetors , viewers and Smith also ) . This theory of thumb hitting bat and air trapped is good as theory but everyone knows the truth . may be England are streching it a bit , but they do have a case .

  • NelsonP on January 16, 2010, 7:23 GMT

    This kind of microscopic investigation is boring and silly. Did a thumb hit a handle? Michael Vaughan suggested a creaking handle. Get Quincy in. Does hotspot really catch every nick? Umpire laser eye vision truth system (h.a.w.k.e.y.e) used to be a tv gimmick, now it knows everything. Let's stop the reviews, the technology is daft, pointless and presumably developed by the american military.

  • muzika_tchaikovskogo on January 16, 2010, 7:09 GMT

    Its unfortunate that there are umpires incompetent enough to get it wrong even with technology at their disposal. Its one thing making human errors, quite another making stupid ones.

    And I find it downright pathetic that here are people out here who choose to drag the Sydney controversy that happened two years ago in the picture here. If only there were more people who bothered to get their facts right. Sadly,Mr. Harper's howlers reflect those of many fans out here.

  • mikeborc on January 16, 2010, 7:07 GMT

    What is it with you English, always whining, always complaining, always cheating, always bemoaning the fact when technology does not support your demand for special treatment. The rugby world cup final for instance, foot clearly over the touch line, but you demanded a try anyway. Morkel's foot was behind the line, no matter how by how little it was behind, but you demand a no ball call anyway. You get caught red handed manipulating the condition of the ball but of course you are innocent and to ' prove it ' some high handed official will be doing some table thumping to make sure an official complaint is not lodged. Captain Grumpy, that proven cheat Atherton, remember the big nick off Alan Donald, dares to intimate that some South African engineer manipulated the sound feed to the third umpire...so sad. Oh almost forgot, what about the recent Lions tour to South Africa where the combined might of the BI were easily dispatched by South Africa...so ungracious in defeat...pathetic nation

  • bones1916 on January 16, 2010, 7:04 GMT

    Daryl Harper is a moron, I've argued that all games with review system should have ALL the technology supplied by the ICC. But in this case, you didn't even need that, all Harper had to do was turn the volume up and it would been clear!

  • Cicerosaurus on January 16, 2010, 6:52 GMT

    Is there anything England won't whine about? There was Broad claiming a request for a referral took too long and now things aren't going their way they are again moaning.

  • raghavmadan on January 16, 2010, 6:07 GMT

    And the 'whiner' of the match is ......

  • ras on January 16, 2010, 5:03 GMT

    Many blame games going on. But I think culprit here is the big brother (read ICC) for not providing adequate technology (HotSpot & snicko). How can u have 3 diff arrangements for 3 series (Hotspot, snicko in Aus, No hotspot in SA and no revies in India!!). This cost thing is all rubbish. ICC is earning billions thru TV rights and sponsorship, surely they can affore to provide all possible tech wherever Test cricket is played. Haven't they heard anything about standardization.

  • gregsmithsays on January 16, 2010, 4:35 GMT

    It's 50/50 on the snick, millions of viewers, the SA captain and vice-captain, the on-field umpire and the 3rd umpire couldn't confirm a nick ... in view of South Africa declining punishment for England found clearly cheating and tampering with the ball (see Trott thumb picking the seam - I'm not mentioning Anderson and Broad) - I think the decision by Andy Flower to lodge an OFFICIAL complaint here, is poor, if not malicious

  • wizman on January 16, 2010, 2:20 GMT

    Andy Flower exposes the hypocrisy of the whole thing with a single statement: "If it wasn't such a serious match for us I would have found it amusing." It is the usual excuse of oh well it's OK in the first test when we are still feeling out each other or when Australia or India get ripped off or when the #11 is given out, but not when we consider it matters to us.

    Either every case matters from all teams and all batsmen in all tests, or not at all.

  • Belltower on January 16, 2010, 1:48 GMT

    Bunch of whingers. Australia copped an absolute bucket of bad decisions in the last 2 ashes series in England didn't see them making any complaints or having the umpire replaced (see India)

  • Perplexed on January 15, 2010, 22:57 GMT

    Am I missing something here? I thought that the system was meant to eliminate glaring errors and where situations are too close to be sure the decision of the on-field umpire stands...

    First England complained about Morkel only just getting a 'pixel' of his foot behind the line... now this. A part of Morkel's foot was behind the line, so there was no no-ball and technology helped there. Case closed.

    Here the ball did not visibly deflect and the third umpire could not see any glaring mistake that had to be rectified. Even if Harper had the audio turned up, the noise could have been the ball that caught the edge, it could've been Smith's thumb on the bat, we can't be sure. And that is exactly the point, there is enough doubt for the decision made by the on-filed umpire to stand.

    Stop complaining and get on with the game, for crying out loud!

  • andrew-schulz on January 15, 2010, 21:58 GMT

    And yet when Asad Rauf overturned a caught behind decision in the recent Adelaide Test on much greater evidence, he was overwhelmingly cricticized. Surely you cannot overturn a caught behind decision on audio evidence alone. The sound can come from many sources. The poms should just shut up, stop their constant whingeing, and be thoroughly embarassed that yet again they have produced a spineless, inadequate, club-standard performance when it really matters. (The Oval being a very rare exception of course.)

  • Dileep.Iyer on January 15, 2010, 21:45 GMT

    And these cheater Englishmen got away last time when they were "playing football" with the cricket ball.... altering the condition of the ball. South Africans were being gentlemen, letting it go and concentrating on the game. Flower things that by being the bad boys, England is going to get the fighting spirits... They were very very lucky all through in this series... Ideally they should've been 2 down in the series...!! Knock this off Mr.Flower, concentrate on the game and try to make a match out of this...!! Rain sure have helped you...! Do your part IN THE FIELD and entertain us with cricket!

  • Coppertop on January 15, 2010, 21:41 GMT

    Just a simple point of very simple physics: We all are aware here of the very simple and most basic of phsyics concepts in regards to sound right? The fact that trapped air between two fast moving objects can also cause sound, a.k.a a snick... Not saying that this is eithe a case of the sound having been generated from a true nick between leather and wood, nor that it was due to trapped air as described above, but I find it simply rediculous how nobody ever takes this into consideration? Anywhere? Ever?

  • 200ondebut on January 15, 2010, 21:23 GMT

    I don't usually agree with Bob Willis but his usual assessment of Daryl Harper is spot on - useless. I don't blame Smith for not walking (or indeed admitting the obvious that he hit it) but he does not need to be so arogant about it. We know he hit it, he knows he hit it - if he doesn't want to embarras the umpire then just shut up and say nothing. Good luck to South Africa for the rest of the test - they deserve at least a draw out of this series.

  • WJStryder on January 15, 2010, 20:42 GMT

    Mind you - you would think that the South African skipper - in all his righteuousness and all his advice to other teams and players about how they shold play the game - might have walked?!?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • WJStryder on January 15, 2010, 20:42 GMT

    Mind you - you would think that the South African skipper - in all his righteuousness and all his advice to other teams and players about how they shold play the game - might have walked?!?

  • 200ondebut on January 15, 2010, 21:23 GMT

    I don't usually agree with Bob Willis but his usual assessment of Daryl Harper is spot on - useless. I don't blame Smith for not walking (or indeed admitting the obvious that he hit it) but he does not need to be so arogant about it. We know he hit it, he knows he hit it - if he doesn't want to embarras the umpire then just shut up and say nothing. Good luck to South Africa for the rest of the test - they deserve at least a draw out of this series.

  • Coppertop on January 15, 2010, 21:41 GMT

    Just a simple point of very simple physics: We all are aware here of the very simple and most basic of phsyics concepts in regards to sound right? The fact that trapped air between two fast moving objects can also cause sound, a.k.a a snick... Not saying that this is eithe a case of the sound having been generated from a true nick between leather and wood, nor that it was due to trapped air as described above, but I find it simply rediculous how nobody ever takes this into consideration? Anywhere? Ever?

  • Dileep.Iyer on January 15, 2010, 21:45 GMT

    And these cheater Englishmen got away last time when they were "playing football" with the cricket ball.... altering the condition of the ball. South Africans were being gentlemen, letting it go and concentrating on the game. Flower things that by being the bad boys, England is going to get the fighting spirits... They were very very lucky all through in this series... Ideally they should've been 2 down in the series...!! Knock this off Mr.Flower, concentrate on the game and try to make a match out of this...!! Rain sure have helped you...! Do your part IN THE FIELD and entertain us with cricket!

  • andrew-schulz on January 15, 2010, 21:58 GMT

    And yet when Asad Rauf overturned a caught behind decision in the recent Adelaide Test on much greater evidence, he was overwhelmingly cricticized. Surely you cannot overturn a caught behind decision on audio evidence alone. The sound can come from many sources. The poms should just shut up, stop their constant whingeing, and be thoroughly embarassed that yet again they have produced a spineless, inadequate, club-standard performance when it really matters. (The Oval being a very rare exception of course.)

  • Perplexed on January 15, 2010, 22:57 GMT

    Am I missing something here? I thought that the system was meant to eliminate glaring errors and where situations are too close to be sure the decision of the on-field umpire stands...

    First England complained about Morkel only just getting a 'pixel' of his foot behind the line... now this. A part of Morkel's foot was behind the line, so there was no no-ball and technology helped there. Case closed.

    Here the ball did not visibly deflect and the third umpire could not see any glaring mistake that had to be rectified. Even if Harper had the audio turned up, the noise could have been the ball that caught the edge, it could've been Smith's thumb on the bat, we can't be sure. And that is exactly the point, there is enough doubt for the decision made by the on-filed umpire to stand.

    Stop complaining and get on with the game, for crying out loud!

  • Belltower on January 16, 2010, 1:48 GMT

    Bunch of whingers. Australia copped an absolute bucket of bad decisions in the last 2 ashes series in England didn't see them making any complaints or having the umpire replaced (see India)

  • wizman on January 16, 2010, 2:20 GMT

    Andy Flower exposes the hypocrisy of the whole thing with a single statement: "If it wasn't such a serious match for us I would have found it amusing." It is the usual excuse of oh well it's OK in the first test when we are still feeling out each other or when Australia or India get ripped off or when the #11 is given out, but not when we consider it matters to us.

    Either every case matters from all teams and all batsmen in all tests, or not at all.

  • gregsmithsays on January 16, 2010, 4:35 GMT

    It's 50/50 on the snick, millions of viewers, the SA captain and vice-captain, the on-field umpire and the 3rd umpire couldn't confirm a nick ... in view of South Africa declining punishment for England found clearly cheating and tampering with the ball (see Trott thumb picking the seam - I'm not mentioning Anderson and Broad) - I think the decision by Andy Flower to lodge an OFFICIAL complaint here, is poor, if not malicious

  • ras on January 16, 2010, 5:03 GMT

    Many blame games going on. But I think culprit here is the big brother (read ICC) for not providing adequate technology (HotSpot & snicko). How can u have 3 diff arrangements for 3 series (Hotspot, snicko in Aus, No hotspot in SA and no revies in India!!). This cost thing is all rubbish. ICC is earning billions thru TV rights and sponsorship, surely they can affore to provide all possible tech wherever Test cricket is played. Haven't they heard anything about standardization.