South Africa v Pakistan, 2nd Test, Cape Town, 2nd day

ICC admits error in Kallis dismissal

Firdose Moonda at Newlands

February 15, 2013

Comments: 254 | Text size: A | A

Jacques Kallis has a word with the umpire about his dismissal, South Africa v Pakistan, 2nd Test, Cape Town, 2nd day, February 15, 2013
Jacques Kallis was given out lbw when he shouldn't have been © Getty Images
Enlarge

The ICC has admitted its Playing Control Team (PCT) made "an honest error" while applying the DRS to the Jacques Kallis review on the second day of the Newlands Test and that the batsman was erroneously given out.

Kallis was given out after an appeal that Pakistan coach Dav Whatmore confirmed was for a bat-pad catch off Saeed Ajmal's bowling. Umpire Steve Davis upheld the appeal but the batsman immediately asked for a review.

Hot Spot replays indicated there was no bat involved, so it couldn't be out caught, but the ball had both pitched and hit Kallis' pad well in line with the stumps and the ball-tracking indicated that it would have clipped leg stump, which was shown to be an umpire's call. As a result, Kallis was instead given out lbw, after input from the third umpire, Billy Bowden.

The playing conditions allow for the method of dismissal to be changed during a review but have specific terms under which that can be done.

Point 3.3 (f) in the playing conditions states: "The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision making process, even if the information is not directly prompted by the on-field umpire's questions. In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third umpire believes that the batsman may instead be out by any other mode of dismissal, he shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly. The process of consultation described in this paragraph in respect of such other mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out."

So when it was evident Kallis could not be out caught, because he had not hit the ball, the evidence for an lbw decision should have been considered from the point of view that the on-field umpire had ruled it not out. The projected path of the ball - clipping leg stump - was then an umpire's call, according to the DRS, and Kallis would have been not out.

"The PCT made an honest error in this extremely rare situation," the ICC said in a release. "The umpires followed usual umpiring principles in giving Kallis out lbw on umpire's call the review was for the batsman out caught. This is because the normal principle is that an appeal covers all forms of dismissal.

"However, the playing conditions state that when the third umpire observes that the batsman could be out by another mode of dismissal, the decision being reviewed using DRS should be as if the batsman had been originally given not out. Therefore, in this instance Kallis, as the point of impact was umpire's call, should not have been given out lbw."

South Africa's team management was "happy with the explanation" they were given, though Kallis had appeared confused about the mode of his dismissal at the time and had held a lengthy conversation with Davis before leaving the field. Team manager, Mohammed Moosajee confirmed South Africa had been involved in discussions with the umpires but said they would not take the matter further.

"There is a code of conduct which we need to abide by when it comes to DRS. We sought clarity from the umpire and we were happy with the explanation," Moosajee said. "We understand that if a batsman is given out for something and the technology shows something else, the third umpire is within his rights to make that decision."

Whatmore interpreted the dismissal in the same way. "My understanding is that when a decision is referred to the TV umpire, he can make his own decision," he said.

This is the second time in the series that DRS has come under discussion. At the Wanderers, Pakistan were unhappy with the use of Hotspot after four decisions went against them. They indicated they would write a report to the ICC and Whatmore said any grievances would be addressed through the channels provided, although nothing further was heard about the issue.

Whatmore remained a backer of DRS in spite of the recent incidents. "I have always been a supporter of technology assisting umpires to make the right decisions. We are very pleased to have DRS. We had a series a few months ago in which we didn't have DRS and it was very frustrating."

South Africa were also in favour of technology. Graeme Smith previously went on record advocating that DRS be used across the board. Kallis, however, had an outburst about ball-tracking technology on South Africa's tour of New Zealand last March in which he said "99% of cricketers," do not trust it.

Firdose Moonda is ESPNcricinfo's South Africa correspondent

RSS Feeds: Firdose Moonda

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by maddy20 on (February 18, 2013, 21:15 GMT)

A good friend of mine says "For something that is supposed to remove doubt and skepticism from decisions, UDRS manages to ridiculously complicate further. Instances like these make me side with BCCI sometimes" and rightly so! If ICC wants to make it mandatory , enforce it in domestic cricket. After a trial run of about 2 years, nearly all of the kinks can be ironed out, so that we can make it near perfect and then use it in international cricket. Until then umpires should be allowed to ask for third umpire's help to check for faint edges for doubtful catches and to check for edged-onto-pad lbw decisions. Experiments in test cricket, with controversial results in nearly every game will only seed more doubts in not only the minds of cricket fans but also in the minds of the administrators.

Posted by   on (February 18, 2013, 13:43 GMT)

That's why I call it the gentlemen's game because they look at whose the gentleman whether to appologies. Sub-conyinent players are regarded as non gentlemen. ICC if you use thecnology, use it for both side not to one only. That I mean Younus Khan decision. You should appologies to both batmen not just Kallis

Posted by highveldhillbilly on (February 18, 2013, 12:31 GMT)

There are a lot of blinded people commenting here. According to the rules Younis was OUT and Kallis was NOT. That's why they're apologizing to Kallis. Younis nicked the ball and was caught, that's out. Kallis was given out for LBW based on the umpires decision but the umpire gave him out for caught bat pad so how can that carry over to the LBW decision? Stop being blinded by patriotism and read the facts.

Posted by India_ANY_track_bully on (February 18, 2013, 11:39 GMT)

It was so simple before DRS... sadly we will only see more of this going ahead since the technology is simply not good enough!!

Posted by SA_Cric69 on (February 18, 2013, 11:37 GMT)

Too many ppl don't understand why DRS utilises the half the ball story. The whole reason why there is such a thing as an "umpires call" in the DRS is to acknowledge that there is a slight inaccuracy in hawkeye. It's not there just to add a bit of fun and controversy. If you want it to be out every time the ball is clipping then you can't use the technology at all because then you're assuming that it's 100% accurate. Secondly, I 100% agree with Tests_the_best and too many people are drawing comparisons with Younis Kahn's dismissal when the issue was never about the mode in which it was given out, it was about the clipping of the stump. The ICC wasn't silent about Younis Khan's dismissal, it's in the rules so what exactly must they say?lol. I do understand that DRS has made things complicated but they're still going through every scenario which can come about so it's only natural that mistakes are gonna happen along the way. I think in it's entirety it's better having it than not.

Posted by   on (February 18, 2013, 11:19 GMT)

why ICC does not consider the dismissal of Younus khan as an umpiring error- where appeal was made for LBW and the batsman was given out for nicking the ball

Posted by SuperSharky on (February 18, 2013, 10:35 GMT)

I believe that the third umpire and the on-field umpire communicates. The third umpire gives all the information he sees and the on-field umpire still has the final say, as cricket was always and is still suppose to be. If the third umpire told the on-field umpire that he could rather be given out lbw than 'n bat-pad catch, and the on-field umpire still decides that Kallis should be out, then I have no problem with his dismissal, as long as the on-field umpire still has the final say and the third umpire is just a source of information.

Posted by   on (February 18, 2013, 10:00 GMT)

Even Smith LBW in the 1st innings was also unqualified. DRS long way to go.

Posted by crikcinfo on (February 18, 2013, 8:56 GMT)

@tests_the_best: I still can't agree with u. On-filed umpire never said not-out. He said out for caught behind, which was a mistake, I agree. But nobody bothered to ask him what is his opinion about an LBW. If the DRS says umpires call, I believe the onfield umpire has a choice to make the decision based on the evidences provided by the 3rd umpire. I dont think the rules are like if the DRS says 'umpires call', it means what umpire called earlier, if it is that way it should be changed. We can't give the benefit to batsman for a mistake in the way he was given out. The truth is, HE WAS OUT and end of the day, the justice has been done.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Firdose MoondaClose
Tour Results
South Africa v Pakistan at Benoni - Mar 24, 2013
South Africa won by 6 wickets (with 36 balls remaining)
South Africa v Pakistan at Durban - Mar 21, 2013
Pakistan won by 3 wickets (with 8 balls remaining)
South Africa v Pakistan at Johannesburg - Mar 17, 2013
South Africa won by 34 runs
South Africa v Pakistan at Centurion - Mar 15, 2013
Pakistan won by 6 wickets (with 28 balls remaining) (D/L method)
South Africa v Pakistan at Bloemfontein - Mar 10, 2013
South Africa won by 125 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days