South Africa v Australia, 1st Test, Cape Town, 2nd day

The Technology Test

Of the 23 wickets to fall on the second day, four of them were given out with the assistance of DRS. Nine decisions were reviewed in total, six that were initially called not-out

Firdose Moonda at Newlands

November 10, 2011

Comments: 61 | Text size: A | A

Vernon Philander requests a referral, South Africa v Australia, 1st Test, Cape Town, 2nd day, November 10, 2011
Technology had it say at Newlands, showing why moving cricket into the modern age can only be a positive thing © Associated Press
Enlarge

Some Test matches produce such compelling contests, are filled with intrigue or are simply so unusual that they need to be named. Test No. 2016 played at Newlands, the first in Cape Town in November in 90 years, is one of them. It will be called the Technology Test.

Of the 23 wickets to fall on the second day, four of them were given out with the assistance of DRS. Nine decisions were reviewed in total, six that were initially called not-out. Cricket has not seen this many wickets fall on a day's play in over a hundred years, and that number would have plummeted today had it not been for the presence of technology.

The day's play was remarkable for many reasons. For three hours and 45 minutes between between the morning and evening session, the Cape Town's cricket field appeared to have been transformed into Johannesburg's high-speed Gautrain. Wickets whizzed by at the rate of one every 11 and a quarter minutes. Every ball was at risk of being appealed and referred, no batsman was safe and anyone who could bowl would have backed themselves to try and add to the carnage.

Then, technology had it say, turning deliveries that would have previously been judged as close but no cigar, into wicket-takers and showing why moving cricket into the modern age can only be a positive thing.

It started when Hashim Amla was struck on the pad by Shane Watson and on first glance, the not out decision did not appear to be obviously questionable. The replays were comprehensive in showing that the naked eye can sometimes err in the worst way possible, and that Amla was not only struck in line but the ball would have gone on to hit middle and leg. The hackneyed expression about technology eliminating the obvious errors has found a way into this piece, largely because of that.

It was the next two referrals that may become the DRS' best case studies of why the system works and should be used. Neither Jacques Kallis nor AB de Villiers would have been given out had technology, and Hot Spot in particular, not been available.

Watson was convinced that Kallis had got bat on ball when his attempt at a pull went wrong. At first glance, it looked as though the ball brushed his shoulder, which it did, and nothing else. Hot Spot knew better and the white mark showed a massive edge. It symbolises a major development for the equipment, which has now progressed to picking up when the ball has made contact with the bat, even when the bat is in rapid motion.

"Our main problem, over the last year or so, has been the blur, particularly when the player swings quickly," Warren Brennan, managing director of BBG Sports, the company who pioneered Hot Spot, told ESPNCricinfo. "On the dead bat shots, I don't think we've missed many of those. That [Kallis decision] surprised me. It still was quite blurry but he obviously smacked the cover off the ball so there was a big Hot Spot. But on the ones where they swing quite hard and get a very small tickle are hard to pick up for us. We've been trying to improve that." The Hot Spot camera was the only one at the ground that picked up Kallis' edge, rubberstamping its worth in the game.

de Villiers may not even have faced a review, had Australia not been in such a dominant position at that stage. The appeal for lbw seemed optimistic and it looked like South Africa's No. 5 had inside-edged onto his pad. Hot Spot immediately dismissed all notion of that, leading to a decision an umpire would likely had been criticised for making if there was no evidence to back it up. "It was quite clear that it hit the pad before it hit the bat," Brennan said.

Mark Boucher, later, had questioned the height of the ball that would give Watson his fifth wicket after being hit above the roll on the back pad. That time it was ball-tracking and Hawk-Eye that showed that the ball was destined for the top of the stumps and so endorsed the on-field call. Brennan said that decisions like that show that, "if you are not going to technology [fully], don't use all of it." "Hot Spot with the ball-tracking covers most of it," he said.

The absence of ball-tracking had bothered Brennan, who covered the four Test series between England and India earlier this year, with only Hot Spot. The series resulted in a renewal of the BCCI's suspicions about the DRS system as a whole and ICC U-turning on their decision for it to be a mandatory part of all Test and one-day series. It was a testing time for Brennan and his team, who felt Thursday's play in Cape Town was vindication for their work. "In the UK, in the middle of the year, we probably had a couple of bad days where we missed a couple," he said. Over the last three months, we have tried to do a lot of things to try and improve it like changing different settings on the cameras. There's a lot of pressure on us to get everything right."

Now, there is also pressure on the players to know when and how to use the technology. Shane Watson could have avoided being the first Australia wicket to fall in their second innings had he reviewed his lbw decision against Dale Steyn - replays showed the ball was going over the stumps. Ricky Ponting asked for his to go to the third umpire, which turned out to be a waste of an Australia review. Vernon Philander called for a review when he thought he had trapped Shaun Marsh lbw, only to be turned down.

With players from both sides appearing stunned at the sheer volume of events that took place on the second day of what will become a truncated Test, the one positive thing they agreed on was that the use of technology benefitted the game. "For the big inside edge or the big caught behind with Hot Spot, its working well," Michael Clarke said. Jacques Rudolph, who had a catch he had taken checked by the third umpire, agreed. "I like it [DRS], because I think if you can bring technology into the game and maybe help the umpires a bit that's a good thing."

Firdose Moonda is ESPNcricinfo's South Africa correspondent

RSS Feeds: Firdose Moonda

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by RandyOZ on (November 12, 2011, 5:02 GMT)

Surely some Indian fans support UDRS? Why do you all jump to the rescue of the BCCI? You don't have to agree with them. It is this bandwagon support as to why your team got crushed 4-0 in England. If no one stands up nothing changes.

Posted by SanjivAwesome on (November 12, 2011, 3:18 GMT)

They've fine tuned the technology and that has clearly improved its accuracy. Bravo. It remains to be seen if these improvements are a flash in the pan or are robust, permanent fixes.

Posted by   on (November 12, 2011, 2:04 GMT)

If the BCCI doesn't want the full use of technology in test matches it plays, so be it. In the upcoming series against Australia, Australia can use it, and India can't. Sounds fair to me.

Posted by TheMysteryMan on (November 11, 2011, 22:18 GMT)

Actually this showed how inconsistent DRS has been in past. The Ball 16.6 where Morkel appealed is perfect example of inconsistency in the decision making. Same thing happened to Laxman in England where hot spot actually worked but didnt show edge but he was given out on the basis of sound of faint nick which was again heard here. Similar thing with dravid. But here the right decision of giving him not out and actually giving benefit of doubt to the batsman. Opposite happened in England. Unless ICC holds a in depth training session for all umpires to rule out such inconsistencies, DRS will remain questionable.

LBWs were marginal even in yesterdays match with couple of lucky decisions going with the bowling side.

yes, technology can reduce the mistakes, but it should not cause additional mistakes. Specially when its used to decide the fate of batsman who can be sent to pavilion again but cannot come out to bat in the same innings again. Benefit of doubt must go to batsman.

Posted by ajmal1988 on (November 11, 2011, 22:02 GMT)

The test series between South Africa and Australia shows how important it is to have DRS in place; the pakistan vs sri lanka test series shows what happens if DRS is not in place; really poor umpiring over there (even simon taufel struggled). When ever there is a decision being given, the broadcasters always go on to show the replays and then the commentators discuss the decision. The broadcasters are going to show it anyway and if they do things like that then there has to be DRS in place. Why do a lot of commentators say " if DRS was in place this would have been given put"? stick to one thing, either you have DRS or the TV broadcasters has to stop showing replays so that there will not be a discussion all the time at every decision; GET ON WITH THINGS !

Posted by SRT_GENIUS on (November 11, 2011, 19:52 GMT)

Wow.. this was probably the most fair and balanced article on the topic I have read till now.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (November 11, 2011, 19:34 GMT)

And why do India remain the only country against this fantastic technology? Probably because exactly what happened to Australia in this match could quite easily happen to India, especially at the moment. The BCCI, with more than enough money to fork out for hotspot etc, has no doubt estimated that this probably adds another 200 runs to any innings total that India makes. And considering how hard India find it to get past 200 these days.....

Posted by NaniIndCri on (November 11, 2011, 19:23 GMT)

For people commenting that this match is a justification for DRS, First you are all assuming that the DRS gave correct decisions, what is the proof that the DRS made right decisions? It just gives a trajectory that it thinks the ball would be heading towards, its as good as an umpires guess. Second, some countries cannot even afford this technology (strangely they support this). Third, Some countries will always oppose what BCCI does. And finally for financial benefits of some company this technology is being forced upon all teams.

Posted by Shan_Karthic on (November 11, 2011, 19:02 GMT)

Why is it acceptable for a pitch to assist fast bowlers to take 23 wickets but when a subcontinent pitch assists spinners then the pitch is reported and reprimanded? Anyone remember recent Aus tour of SL?

Posted by zico123 on (November 11, 2011, 15:04 GMT)

so far Australia carry Mr old Punter and Mr Inconsistent Johnson Australia would not go forward and stay at 4-5 in ranking, both of them should have been dropped 2 years back

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Firdose MoondaClose
Tour Results
South Africa v Australia at Johannesburg - Nov 17-21, 2011
Australia won by 2 wickets
South Africa v Australia at Cape Town - Nov 9-11, 2011
South Africa won by 8 wickets
Sth Africa A v Australians at Potchefstroom - Nov 1-3, 2011
Australians won by 7 wickets
South Africa v Australia at Durban - Oct 28, 2011
Australia won by 3 wickets (with 15 balls remaining)
South Africa v Australia at Port Elizabeth - Oct 23, 2011
South Africa won by 80 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days