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

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 IndiaNumeroUno 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.

Posted by warneneverchuck on (February 18, 2013, 8:00 GMT)

Yes nobody complain when younus was given out bcoz Kallis is far bigger player than him so his dismissal was crucial

Posted by vedichitesh on (February 18, 2013, 3:14 GMT)

The rules should be simplified ...... We should know the Umpires are not referees. Umpires give decisions if asked for. The Fielding side should tell the umpires what is the appeal for and if DRS is used it should be used only for that appeal. Kallis was not out and so was Younis Khan. These are basics of Cricket ..... No harm in asking what are you appealing for in such situations.

Posted by   on (February 18, 2013, 0:54 GMT)

Why was the ICC silent when Younis was given out the same way?

Posted by   on (February 18, 2013, 0:09 GMT)

Younis Khan was given out caught behind when they appealed for LBW, no one said anything about this?

Posted by   on (February 17, 2013, 22:07 GMT)

@Alarky, spot on. Away with this "umpire's call" stuff, it just adds to the controversy. Just simply give the third umpire the power to use his own discretion and not have his hands tied. As it stands, the third umpire is being forced to make decisions that he can see is wrong, because if it's a close call, he has to go with "umpire's call", whether he agrees with it or not.

This is not what happened with Kallis, but I've seen it happen many times already with other players, and it makes a farce of justice.

Posted by alarky on (February 17, 2013, 20:09 GMT)

I also think that the current DRS is still allowing for too much guessing by umpires. the whole thing could be made more easy for them by doing the two following things: (i) The rule should say that once Hawkeye shows that the ball is hitting any part of the stumps, the batsman should be given out bowled on referal - the mere fact that that is what obtains in normal circumstances. This "bigger part of the ball hittingl" or "small section of the ball hitting'", only gives rise to more umpiring controversy. (ii) In addition, the rule should always be that anyhow that the DRS shows that a batsman is out on referal, he should be given out. If this is the case, then Kallis would have been ruled out so easily by the 3rd umpire without without any controversy. The technology is available and should be used; why not keep it as simple as possible?

Posted by Saffa_1 on (February 17, 2013, 17:06 GMT)

Wow..all I can say is that we have a whole bunch of Pakistani fans that can't grasp the rules that the icc have provided and the reason for the apology to kallis. Kallis challenged the umpires decision because he believed it was the incorrect decision and was vindicated by the icc. Does kallis have a history of doing this unless he firmly believes he is correct? No! So, as I type this, sa have won the test match and the series and are chugging back on a few beers so instead of being of writing this drivel about jk's morals, why don't you pakistanis go back to the drawing board.

Posted by   on (February 17, 2013, 16:19 GMT)

DRS is a total disaster.... Its not a 100% fool proof technology. Even umpires are confused about DRS.

Posted by cricindia4life on (February 17, 2013, 16:04 GMT)

Hawkeye must show an area of +/- 3 standard deviations of where they think the ball is going to land, as opposed to showing only the most likely point of impact on the stumps. If the edges of that area are within the edges of the stumps, then there's a 99.8% chance the ball would hit the stumps in which case the call should be out (given other criteria have been met) regardless of on field call. If the impact area overhangs by up to 25%, the on-field call should be upheld. If the overhang is more than 25 %, the call should be not out regardless of the on-field call. Use math people!

If Hawkeye is too embarrassed about using a +/- 3 sigma area because it'd appear to be too large of an area, then BCCI is absolutely right - the technology isn't accurate enough.

Posted by cricindia4life on (February 17, 2013, 16:03 GMT)

Each player should get, for example, 5 unsuccessful reviews per year. They can review as many times as they want throughout the year, as long as they still have their quota left. This way, it's player-based as opposed to team-based. We can't deny lower order batsmen the chance to review just because three selfish top-order players had used up the teams reviews. For reviews from the fielding team, each team can get 20 unsuccessful reviews per year. These numbers are examples and should be modified after an ICC members discussion.

Posted by spinkingKK on (February 17, 2013, 12:33 GMT)

These are all small blemishes. The real shocker was when the third umpire, Rauf, ruled a west indian batsman out caught behind when the on-field umpire gave it NOT OUT and all the evidences suggested that the ball didn't hit the bat. This happened in the recently concluded ODI series between the West Indies and Australia. How come there was no talk about that?

Posted by here2rock on (February 17, 2013, 10:56 GMT)

The ICC is making the game confusing. If the ball is hitting the stump then it should be given out regardless whether it is just clipping the stump or hitting it? The technology is based on projection so lets just keep it simple and nobody will feel bad about it. Kallis has the right to feel hard done by the umpires. ICC please fix it.

Posted by Apocalypse_EX on (February 17, 2013, 10:12 GMT)

@Ryan Stephen I agree that fining a player is harsh just because they showed their emotion, but as long as the "the umpire's decision is final" law remains what can they gain by going on?

Posted by   on (February 17, 2013, 9:35 GMT)

Many have commented that umpires call is unfair and that if hawkeye shows the ball clipping the stumps it should be out. But the rule exists because of the degree of error in hawkeyes predicted path is about 3cm at the point where the predicted line crosses the stumps as set out on the hawkeye website. So when hawkeye shows less than half the ball hitting the stump there is about a 10 percent probability the ball would have missed the stump. If the graphic shows the ball just kissing ghe stump the is a 50 percent chance it would have missed. It would be more honest for the hawkeye graphic to show the range of predicted paths including the ones missing the stumps rather than just the most likely path.

Posted by   on (February 17, 2013, 9:26 GMT)

@Apocalypse, I agree that they are not being consistent if they don't fine Kallis. But I believe they should stop all of this fining of players for what the ICC considers "showing dissent". How can we excuse umpires for bad decisions by saying "they're human", but players are not allowed to be human and stand on the field, shake their head or ask questions when they feel that they have been robbed? Any of us would do the same thing when faced with extreme frustration/disappointment.

If we continue to treat players like they are not human, then we should also start fining umpires for making bad decisions.

Posted by   on (February 17, 2013, 8:15 GMT)

No Wonder Indian's are not willing to use DRS. BCCI chief threatens to pull out tours in the ICC committee meeting when the opposite Board forces the DRS use. Not without a reason they refuse the DRS. An apology from ICC on the DRS will only bridge the gap for its use......

Posted by Eskay13 on (February 17, 2013, 7:19 GMT)

(i) Wonder if an official apology would ever have come had this been a bastman from the subcontinent bearing the brunt of the mess up

(ii) Have lost count of the number of DRS-related goof ups in recent times. Wonder if anyone will ever do a focussed analysis of the number of *new* complications that have come out since DRS was introduced, case studies of some of the key goof ups, ending in an unbiased comment re the actual good that has come out of DRS in international matches (e.g. technology is not perfect and will keep improving, but you could say the same for human umpires. At least with human umpires, fellow humans acknowledged and understood the error element)

Posted by here2rock on (February 17, 2013, 6:45 GMT)

The rules are so confusing, despite all the technological advances umpires still make errors.

Posted by Apocalypse_EX on (February 17, 2013, 6:35 GMT)

Without commenting about the dismissal in particular, I would be very disappointed if Kallis is not fined. Legend or not no player should get away with arguing/challenging the umpires no matter how horribble the decision. Some players are fined for for merely staying in the field for a second and shaking their heads for showing dissent. The ICC should be uniform in this matter.

Posted by   on (February 17, 2013, 6:23 GMT)

I made the same comment about the dismissal of Younus Khan but cricinfo did not publish it. Why the fuss when Kallis was given the same treatment. I stop there. Won't comment. After all it's a gentlemen's game, isn't it?

Posted by   on (February 17, 2013, 6:05 GMT)

Waseem - if you follow the principal YK's decision was correct. Initially SA appealed for lbw given not out - reviewed and the review showed an inside edge with the catch taken by De Villiers. This information was given to the on field umpire from the point that the caught decision "not out". The new facts were conclusive (not umpire's call) therefore he was out. No conspiracy against Pakistan.

Posted by   on (February 17, 2013, 5:19 GMT)

Wasn't YK given out in the exact scenerio in first innings??? Also the first test errors??? Can see ICC's focus on pleasing some countries.....

Posted by   on (February 17, 2013, 3:20 GMT)

ooooo , now now , BCCI would be delighted , so will not see DRS in Indian matches for sure

Posted by   on (February 17, 2013, 1:16 GMT)

All hail the BCCI!!!hahaha

Posted by clearhead on (February 16, 2013, 23:05 GMT)

I am not surprised that Billy Bowden was involved (and was the one that made the mistake). In my opinion he is one of the most over-rated of the tier I umpires!!

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 22:53 GMT)

What's the big deal. He was OUT. Period. Ajmal outfoxed him. That's a fact. I was sick and tired of the commentators going on and on about ICC regulations etc. Why is the ICC apologising? Kallis was LBW. He was beaten. The way all the pundits are speaking, its as if Kallis was wronged. It would be Ajmal who would be wronged, since it was a correct LBW decision. Move on people. The game is getting exciting by the day. Let's enjoy the rest of the test.

Posted by HeartMaker on (February 16, 2013, 22:47 GMT)

seems like ICC is not with Pakistan Kallis argue with the umpire no action been taken if the same error done by the Pakistanis offcourse ICC will take an action it was a fair game Younis was given out as a caught behind and Kallis was given out as LBW. ICC pls be fair with everyone Thanks

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 21:35 GMT)

The appeal for Kallis wicket was for EITHER LBW or Catch. The Umpire made no referrence as to which ground he gave him out on. Legally the original decision was out; hence clipping the stumps & staying with the umpire's call of Out is still out.... Why can't SA understand this, instead they make up assumptions that th eoriginal decision for out was for a catch... did you not hera the appeal ... it WAS FOR EITHER LBW or CATCH - which is quite normal in cricket

Posted by Farhan_83 on (February 16, 2013, 20:39 GMT)

Article makes it clear as law; however just two observations:

1. Who ever is making rules of DRS isn't doing it in consultation with umpires, else such errors won't appear. DRS is there to ease umpires and not players hence it is absolutly essential that rules are made in consultation with umpires.

2. Umpire gave Kallis "Catch Out"; which was wrong decision; as he didn't nick it; however hypothetically if Umpire hadn't sensed a nick invovled; would he have given Kallis LBW? As clearly umpire didn't decide upon the ball trajectory; so he didn't decide about it; and there fore third umpire decision can neither be judged wrong nor right! What a paradox.

Concept of DRS is to support umpire to make correct decision and Not to complete it.

Well Done ICC...

Posted by Khan809 on (February 16, 2013, 19:33 GMT)

All understood, one simple question, umpire gave caught, didn't even think about lbw as he thought it was a nick. Now, as there was no nick, hence the umpires call can not be applied to lbw nor it can be taken as not out. ICC before accepting its mistake should understand its own laws and update them. Suggestion, get rid of umpires call for reviewed lbws all together, it should be out or not out only.

Posted by ProteaMan on (February 16, 2013, 19:28 GMT)

tests_the_best You hit the nail on the head, but the decision is going to haunt the Paks

Posted by wakaPAK on (February 16, 2013, 19:14 GMT)

These points from the discussion below should put an end to the debate. "Law 27.4 says that the appeal covers ALL manners of out." pointed out by Special_Analyser. and an important observation by some one " What if Steve Davies though it was out LBW but there was a nick and when the catch was taken, steve davies gave him out." In that case what should Steve Davies tell the third umpire... well, I think there is no clause which ask the onfiled umpire to tell the Third umpire whether it is LBW or Caught behind. What if Steve Davies think it would have been out LBW if it had not nicked?

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 19:13 GMT)

I m not an expert but in case of Younis Khan SAF appealed for LBW not for caught behind. So on the basis of that why he was given out ???? Out means OUT and umpires decision is should be final Kalis stayed there and questioned umpire and Younis walked as soon as the finger was raised . In ICC Ex SOuth Africans players ( now bosses of ICC) came up with this acceptance of error just because SA player was involved .. BRAVI BRAVO ICC !!!

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 16, 2013, 18:44 GMT)

Those who say Kallis was wrongly given out base it solely on a line in 3.3 f which says that the new mode of dismissal must be seen as being reviewed as if the batsman had been given Not-Out. But in many cases when the batsman has been given Not out the decision is over turned isnt it? And as far as the point of it being umpire's call goes, Umpire's Call does not mean that the umpire MUST stand by his original decision. It means the umpire can use his discretion to stand by or overturn his own decision in the light of fresh evidence.

I am very surprised that some ppl here are using wrong interpretation of the law to support their misplaced opinions and even the ICC has failed to understand its own laws properly.

Undoubtedly Pak fans have a very strong reason to complain. It is as if these ppl are mocking at them for getting Kallis's wicket when in fact they suffered a similar thing when Younis was given out and said nothing cos they had used common sense.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 18:29 GMT)

Instead of writing ICC admits, it would be better to write Dave Richardson admits

Posted by nomanzafar on (February 16, 2013, 18:14 GMT)

Excellent work by ICC one wrong decision against South Africa and there is explanation by ICC. why no explanation given for 4 wrong decisions against Pakistan?

Posted by rivergate on (February 16, 2013, 17:48 GMT)

Agree with Discobob- if the on-field umpire thought the batsman had hit the ball, and the review made it "go with the umpire's call" not clear how this could possibly be out.

Where would you stop? what if the batsman got an edge (maybe) onto pad, the ball then hit the wicketkeepers gloves (which might have been what removed the bails) at the same time as the stumps are broken? He might be lbw, bowled, caught, or stumped, or...

Posted by KashifMuneer on (February 16, 2013, 16:46 GMT)

There have been a number of poor umpiring decisions in this match and the last match (where AB DeVilliers got an edge but wasn't given out caught behind but a Pakistani batsman was in an identical case). In this test Pakistan had to review twice to get LBW where the ball was completely hitting the stumps.

Coming to the clause 3.3, I think the clause needs to be amended to be honest. If a batsman is out in any way, he should be given out whether the batting team or bowling team review it. It would be unfair to give the batsman not out if in fact he was out. Also did Davis actually say that he had given Kallis out caught or LBW? A bowling team should have the option of appealing for any mode of dismissal not just 1 mode.

Posted by tests_the_best on (February 16, 2013, 16:32 GMT)

@swingit yes that explains it further. To reiterate, the third umpire found it not-out for bat pad but how does he know, with regard to lbw whether the on-field umpire would have said out or not-out? This is where the ICC clause comes in "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." Hence with the ball just clipping the stump, the lbw decision stays the original one, which was not out as per the clause. One could debate if that ICC clause is correct but as per that rule, it's not out.

@Achettup, you have a point. The rule could be modified so that instead of assuming the original decision for the other mode of dismissal is not out, the third umpire could simply tell the on-field umpire it's not-out for bat pad and then ask the on-field umpire if he would have given him out lbw in that case. Either rule is fine IMO with the existing one favoring the batsman.

Posted by aahahaa on (February 16, 2013, 16:09 GMT)

BCCI is virtually ruling the game and has been staunchly opposing the DRS citing inaccuracy and ambiguity. all and sundry know that DRS is good for the game. now this mistake from S Davis, which isn't his first, is simply incompetent. the need is to find good sharp umpires and help them with DRS to run the game better. onus is on ICC.

Posted by wrenx on (February 16, 2013, 16:03 GMT)

Seriously, where was the ICC apology for all the umpiring blunders in applying DRS after the last test match?

Posted by S.Alis on (February 16, 2013, 14:44 GMT)

It's not first umpire error and it's definitely not the last one. Even with DRS we will see these kind of errors more often than rare. We saw how there was edge in the last test but not out for SA batsman while they given out to misbah in the same case. So why don't we just put this behind.

It's NOT DRS fault and it's not Pakistan teams fault. So i would suggest to both sides just chill down. And especially as a Pakistani, I would say to my other pakistani fellows to just stop saying world is against us or they're making big issue because it's not Pakistani or something. It was an umpiring error, accepted by ICC, then all we can say is bad luck for Kallis. Really there is nothing more to it.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 14:29 GMT)

Ok good that ICC admits it's mistake but where was ICC when the PCT including the match referee Srinath called off the AUS Vs SL 4th ODI sighting unfair playing conditions whereas a game can be called off due to bad weather only on the basis of unsafe playing conditions. Why this double standards???

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 14:27 GMT)

This half a ball lbw rule effectively reduces the size of the stumps by about 20% a not inconsiderable amount. Drs is fine, but the game is more and more weighted towards batsmen.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 14:15 GMT)

I don't understand why many people are saying that it was a fair decision because he was out anyway. If Kallis was out because he was hit in line and the ball was going on to clip the leg stump then there should be no such thing as "an umpire's call." Every lbw appeal should then be referred to the 3rd umpire who can make a decision based on hawk eye. It's ridiculous that two batsmen can both be hit in line with the ball going on to just clip the wickets and one is given out while the other is not. DRS is supposed to erase these kind of mistakes and inconsistencies from the game. I'm happy for Kallis to be given out lbw as he was hit in line and the ball was going on to hit the stumps - but then the standard applied to him must be applied to everyone. It IS lbw or it ISN'T. The "umpire's call" is frustratingly being shown up to be erroneously subjective. Let's decide one way or the other. Clipping the stumps should be either out or not out for ALL batsmen.

Posted by Achettup on (February 16, 2013, 13:55 GMT)

I'm not sure I understand the ICC's logic in automatically assuming the original decision was not out for the secondary mode of dismissal. It seems to have been designed specifically to combat the close decisions on LBW like the above case (which makes it all the more ironic that the wrong decision was arrived at), which hints at covering the deficiencies current technology possesses with regards to accurate ball tracking (say whatever you want, there is a margin of error and it is not 100% accurate). Rather than assume the other mode is not out, why not ask the umpire on the field if he believed the secondary mode was on? And how can the ICC assume what was appealed for and what mode of dismissal was being considered? The appeal is only for a wicket, not the mode and the umpire doesn't explain his decision either. DRS is far from perfect and the umpires don't seem to understand all the ins and outs (sorry, no pun intended) either.

Posted by disco_bob on (February 16, 2013, 13:20 GMT)

This is but a tempest in a thimble. Who care, it wasn't a howler, in fact Kallis was out anyway so he would only be not out on the slimmest of technicalities where the on field ummpire didn't even consider the LBW obviously seeing as he thought it was a catch.

After all the really bad and obviously incorrect DRS decisions we've had recently to see the ICC doing all this hand wringing over this innoculous incident is a bit ridiculous.

Posted by SydRose on (February 16, 2013, 12:55 GMT)

Did they considergiving a referal back to South Africa ?

Posted by OOZZ on (February 16, 2013, 12:43 GMT)

Isn't there a simple thing missing here? Did the on-field umpire even consider the lbw appeal. If the on-field umpire was given proof that the ball was not hitting the bat, then he might have thought about the path of the ball and the lbw appeal and passed judgement on that.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 11:50 GMT)

The original on field decision by Davis to give Kallis out caught (bat/pad) was an extremely poor one and frankly stank for an ICC panel umpire of his seniority & experience. He clearly didn't hit it and I don't think the Pakistanis would have reviewed it for that mode of dismissal after the appeal was made. To then give a batsman out LBW when its JUST CLIPPING leg stump....more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting them/it for DRS to confirm it was...was a joke but then who was the third umpire?...Billy Bowden..!!!..another official prone to making on field gaffes & howlers let alone in the relative comfort of the unpressurised TV reply room!!. In this case both match & technology umpiring just wasn't good enough. Kallis ALWAYS walks when he knows he's out and yet - rightly or wrongly - has expressed his concern(s) about the acurracy & legitimacy of DRS and on this evidence he still has every reason to be.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 11:41 GMT)

Bad luck Mr Kallis.Its just the luck of the day.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 11:31 GMT)

the people saying Kallis is out, dont know how DRS works. If he was out, then all LBW appeals that just clip the stumps would be out, regardless of "umpires call". The original decision for LBW was not out, clipping stumps = umpires call. How do people not understand this?

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 11:24 GMT)

what about wrong decisions of umpires in first test.. ICC should apologize for that too why there are double standards??

Posted by Batesta on (February 16, 2013, 10:48 GMT)

Just when you think you can give the Pakistan team a break and start cheering them on as a neutral cricket fan (I was hoping to see somebody beat SA for a change)..... you get the typical the world is against us comments from their fans, and once again I find myself hoping they don't get a win.

The Kallis and Khan dismissals are not the same...... try reading the article. The Khan referral might have been for LBW, but the fact that he DEFINITELY hit it, meant that he was definitely out caught. The Kallis dismissal was for caught, but he didn't hit it - if the ball had been going on to definitely hit the stumps (In terms of DRS, at least hitting more then half of leg stump), then he should have been out - no questions asked (like Khan).

As the ball was only clipping leg stump, there was too much doubt and according to the article should have been NOT OUT.

NO BIAS here - just facts. The bigger fact however is - look at the scoreboard, Kallis was given out. DONE

Posted by waqarkhan786 on (February 16, 2013, 10:48 GMT)

Why it is ok when its Younis Khan and not Ok when it is Kallis.

Posted by preevan_saisdabomb on (February 16, 2013, 10:38 GMT)

Yunus Khan was out. Kallis was not, simple as that.

Posted by Anonymous_dude on (February 16, 2013, 10:30 GMT)

Will ICC admit the mistake now when clearly Irfan did not bowl a no ball but was given no ball and a wicket that was supposed to fall, did not? When 3rd umpire can overturn a decision of out on replays for a no ball, why cant he overturn the decision of a not out when clearly the replay shows not a no ball?

Posted by ldrndll on (February 16, 2013, 10:19 GMT)

Wow, the amount of ignorance displayed in some of these comments is astounding. (I'm looking at you Happy_AusBang, Cricket_theBestGame, Shafqat Khattak). Did you even read the article? It clearly explains that although the umpire was correct to examine all forms of dismissal, because he was incorrectly given out caught behind the umpire's original decision is considered not out. Thus, since an LBW review has a corridor of uncertainty where - although the ball is hitting the stumps - it is marginal enough that umpire's original call is deferred to. And in this case, the original call (with regard to LBW) was not out. Hence the clarification from the ICC THAT THE CALL WAS WRONG. This has nothing in common with Younis, where (once again) the umpire examined all forms of dismissal and found that he was out. No clarification necessary. If you're going to whinge at least understand the rules and whinge about something valid.

Posted by regofpicton on (February 16, 2013, 10:19 GMT)

Seems to be something strange here. It seems Kallis should not have been given out LBW beause he was believed to have hit the ball, which is why he was given out caught. So, the ICC says that it should have been the umpire's call on the LBW and he should have been given not out on review because he was given "Not out LBW, because her hit the ball", therefore "the fact that that the ball would have only clipped the stumps was insufficiient to overturn the umpire's call that he was not out LBW".

You'll forgive me if i seem confused! I reckon that the umpire gave him out caught meant that the umpire never really expressed an opinion on whether the ball would have hit the stumps, because the question simp[y never arose. So he DIDN'T give him not out LBW. So there is no reason to ignore the fact that the ball would have clipped the stumps. Kallis LBW Ajmal, QED

Posted by 158notout on (February 16, 2013, 9:58 GMT)

I can't help thinking a few posters have missed the point here - Happy_AusBang and EverybodyLovesSachin amongst them. There is no comparison with the Younis Khan dismissal and at no point have the ICC said that the review should not have looked at other forms of dismissal. The ONLY point they have clarified is that IF the original decision is OUT and the batsman appeals and is found to be NOT OUT by that method of dismissal then the review of any other method starts from the premise that the original decision was NOT OUT. Therefore Kallis should have been given not out only because the decision was Umpires Call, not because it was a different mode.

This does bring up another flaw that I think is in DRS. If a review is unsuccessful but it is umpires call then I don't think the team should lose one of their appeals.

Posted by Smahuta on (February 16, 2013, 9:36 GMT)

Let me explain because some people either cannot read or seem a little bit dim. The umpire gave out because he thought kallis hit it. Kallis reviews and is found not to have hit it. So now they see that it is an LBW appeal rather than a caught. So under these circumstances the umpire would have said not out if he was giving LBW because he THOUGHT KALLIS HIT THE BALL. Now under review the call would have been umpires call which under those rules would have been given not out. Capiche?

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 9:35 GMT)

well umpire may have not given lbw cause he thought its a its not at all an unfair decision....

Posted by RaadQ on (February 16, 2013, 9:35 GMT)

What is interesting is that Kallis is not allowed to ask the umpire what he gave the decision out for. So while Bowden made the error in hindsight, during the actual game, no one should have known this, and Kallis shouldn't had an argument with the umpire. So multiple mistakes were made, not only with the decision, but with the protocol. I believe the best way to solve this is that the umpire must tell the third umpire his stance on the other decision. I.E. Bowden should have asked that if there is no edge, do you give the LBW out or not, rather than it being automatically assumed. If Davies says no, its not out, and if yes, then its out...

Posted by Langjan on (February 16, 2013, 9:25 GMT)

Shafqat, don't let your subjectivity cloud your good judgement and sportmanship - rules are there to be respected and applied and were wrongly interpreted in this case, hence the admission by the ICC.

Posted by Stuart_online on (February 16, 2013, 9:25 GMT)

Before the TV umpire started the review, he should have asked the on-field umpire whether any other dismissal was being given (ie LBW) in the event there was no bat involved. Kallis' review of the caught decision was successful (no review should be lost). Then if there was a further appeal ("if he didn't hit it how's that for LBW ?"), we should know if the on-field umpire gave LBW out or not out, so that either of SAF or PAK could choose to review that decision, which would then have remained umpires call. So if LBW had been given not-out once there was known to be no bat, PAK would have had to review it and lost a review when it remained umpires call. Or if LBW had been given, Kallis could have chosen whether or not to review it and risk an unsuccessful review.

Posted by santhoshkr on (February 16, 2013, 9:10 GMT)

I am still not clear. Let us say that the umpire felt that Kallis was plumb in front but he gave caught because he thought it hit the bat and so always caught takes precedence against a lbw decision. So he might have given him out caught. And DRS finds the ball is not caught. How can we claim that the umpire didnt think that it is not out lbw. Did they check that with the onfield umpire? i dont think so.

Posted by danish1983 on (February 16, 2013, 9:06 GMT)

ICC is losing its reputation as cricketing body serving for the benefit of cricket all over the world, by showing its double standards. They should have made an apology to Pakistan after the 1st test in view of the decisions being made againt them. The way Kallis challenged the umpires decision, had it been any of the Pakistani criciketer, he could have faced a fine or may be banned for a match. I think ICC should give it a thought.

Posted by iqbaladnan on (February 16, 2013, 9:01 GMT)

This explanation implies the following 1. Section 22.4 is null since an appeal (is assumed to be) is only for ONE type of out which means Whenever there is situation of two types of possible outs (example LBW and Run out) we have to consider any of the two scenarios a. Bowling team is allowed to make only one appeal b. Their first appeal is rejected, they go for the other appeal

Looks like ICC is opening another can of worm for themselves (and officials and fans alike)

Posted by yadabhi7 on (February 16, 2013, 8:50 GMT)

Thats what we are saying from india, DRS is not good also, It has some errors & they are not correcting them. Indians are Right. The teams getting the profit in any match they are supporting this...........come on ICC now it is explained by us earlier but u can't understand.

Posted by venkatesh018 on (February 16, 2013, 8:45 GMT)

ICC have done very well to admit its guilt. It is just an error in application by the umpires and this mistake will only help in making the system better. This one dismissal in no way should be held against DRS, which has worked fabulosly in the Test so far(Saeed Ajmal will vouch for that).

Posted by Damageinc on (February 16, 2013, 8:26 GMT)

Why complain?Whats matter is that the right decision was made in the end,It doesn't matter whether he was out bat n pad or LbW,it was the right decision in the end,no matter what was originally thought by the on field umpire,people need to get over it and don't make so much fuss about it.It was a correct decision and it would have been very unfair to overturn that decision.I can't believe that commentators and experts are making so much hue n cry over this decision which was a very decent decision.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 8:20 GMT)

all Pakistanis are saying that the same decision went against younis khan,i can understand their frustration but to be honest there was no issue of on field call in younis's decision..he was originally given not out and then given out through the review but in Kallis's case,umpire gave him out bat and pad,so when kallis reviewed it, only the mode of dismissal by which he had been given out should have been scrutinised,but that didnt offence to Pakistanis though,4 decision swent against them in last test and i think the ICC and the umpires should also have apologised to the Pakistani camp.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 8:17 GMT)

Why complicate things, Dont use DRS is much more simple ! It is easier to digest few bad decision without DRS than to have poor decisions with DRS in place whether through technological deficiencies of DRS or through mis-interpretation of the evidences by the PCT.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 8:02 GMT)

As everyone admits,UDRS isn't consistent yet.So its better to leave the decision making to the on-field umpires.Technology can only be used to provide inputs to the on-field umpires,for example,in this incident,technology could have been consulted only to find out whether there was a nick or not,and nothing beyond that. Besides,UDRS needs to have a 2-way communication between on-field and tv umpires to make better decision.The TV umpire must inform the on-field umpire about the reviewed mode of dismissal.However,he should also inform the on-field umpire about another mode of dismissal that could be considered in that particular incident and the inputs for this mode of dismissal.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 7:58 GMT)

I agree with the Happy_AusBang comment. I don't know why ICC feels decision error in Kallis case, When players are appealing for out they are going for every thing possible as happens with Younus Khan when he was given not out after finding inside edge. When Umpire gives Kallis OUT it means if during DRS thrid umpire found any evidence of out it must be considered....

Anyway DRS shows its power in today's game and that is a good thing. now teams and players cannot blam umpires to turn around match result as they did previously.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 7:15 GMT)

he was 100 percent out do the icc know the rules..... an appeal covers all modes of dismissal........therefore he was out as the ball was clipping the stumps.....umpires original decision was out in the first place !!!

Posted by SherjilIslam on (February 16, 2013, 7:15 GMT)

SA should get the Kallis review back since the appeal was for catch, and the Hotspot couldn't find any edge.Correct decision made as all the kind of technologies are there to rectify human errors, not to overlook and make the decision on technical grounds.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 7:06 GMT)

For all those saying Younis's dismissal was the same case as Kallis's. I'd say: Please! Don't you all understand the difference? In Kallis's case, the appeal was for a catch and the third empire found no evidence for the catch. Since the on-field empire had given Kallis out for a catch & not LBW, the decision was NOT OUT for lbw. Now, it is acceptable that a third empire can rule out on another mode of dismissal only if there's credible evidence. In this case, since the on-field empire had given NOT OUT to the lbw, and the ball just 'clipped' the stumps it shouldn't have been given an out. Imagine Pakistan reviewing in this case for lbw, had the umpire given not out. It would have remained a not out. Had the umpire given an OUT for lbw, it would have remained an out. In short, there wasn't credible evidence for third umpire to rule Kallis lbw. In the case of Younis, it was clearly opposite: The third umpire didn't find any evidence for lbw, but the third umpire did find it for a catch!

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 7:01 GMT)

Wow a full article and an apology from ICC. Seems like ICC wasn't watching first test where 4 decisions went against Pakistan and all 3rd Umpire overturned. Shame on you ICC.

Posted by vonbrandis on (February 16, 2013, 6:59 GMT)

Younis vs Kallis dismissal = confusing yet simple (as we come to terms with the DRS laws)

Younis was given "not out" by the on-field umpire. A review was requested by the Proteas. The third umpire in this instance, must investigate ANY possibility for the original "not out" ruling to be overturned. Any new evidence must be presented to the on-filed umpire. In this rare case, Younis was not out lbw, but caught behind. That evidence had to be presented and the original decision overturned.

Kallis was given "out" by the on-field umpire - as caught. The batsman reviewed the dismissal. As mentioned clearly above, the third umpire should have conducted the lbw review as "not out", as lbw was not the referral sent upstairs to be reviewed.

There will be teething problems with the DRS / third umpire reviews as everyone comes to terms with the specific laws. Should "not out" and "out" reviews have different laws? Should the laws differ for the on-field team or the batmen? Probably, yes.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 6:45 GMT)

Pakistan complained against Steve Davis Umpiring decisions in first innings but ICC promoted him in this test by making him field umpire this time. ICC should have apologized when AB was adjudged Not Out in first test. South Africa should take it as one such sporting decision which goes against them and at the same time remember the wrong ones favored them. For Pakistan its something like a surprise that Umpire decision favored them.

Let the cricket win this match. Last test Dale Steyn was in limelight this time around its Ajmal.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 6:45 GMT)

Khan was clearly out. In Kallis dismissal the appeal was for a catch. If the appeal was for LBW then and the umpire gave him not out he would have been not out after review. That's the point. The right decision was not made because the on field umpire did not make a decision for LBW. If the ball was not just clipping the stumps but hitting them full on, no one would have complained.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 6:43 GMT)

If the DRS decides that the batsman is out, why does it matter what the onfield umpire called? If he was out lbw, and given out lbw, what is the discussion about?

Posted by cricfan-AS-CA on (February 16, 2013, 6:19 GMT)

ICC statment about Kallis dismissal an Error. Why double standard. When it comes to Kallis dismissal ICC accepting an error, how about Misbah dismissal in first test, wasn't an error. How about Younus dismissal, there was no statement from ICC. ICC either improve the umpiring standards otherwise no comments on DRS decision. I as cricket fan fully support DRS decision.

Posted by u_k123 on (February 16, 2013, 6:14 GMT)

can the ICC explain when the DRS shows its clipping the stumps and the umpire gives it NOTOUT however the team reviews it and it shows its clipping the stumps and it stays with the on field umpire call as NOT OUT should it not be the case that if its clipping or hitting full on the stumps it should be OUT.

Posted by HaoZaat on (February 16, 2013, 6:08 GMT)

Granted, by rule  3.3 (f), Kallis was not out. But this rule is illogical and should be revised. Once the on field umpire refers the matter to third umpire and if the DRS review reveals that the batsman is out some other way, the ruling should be given as out (like Younas was). And why the ball brushing the stump, and bails coming off, in HawkEye track is not good enough? And why more than half the ball must hit the stump for the DRS decision to be firm? In tennis, even if ball barely touches the line, it is considered on the line. The use of DRS will become much simpler and less controversial if the tennis principle is applied in cricket. HawkEye may have some margin of error but that error would be consistently applied without bias to both teams. The DRS margin of error and bias would be much less than that of umpires on the field.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 6:07 GMT)

I think the DRS itself needs another Review for the way it is being implemented. It has everything but 'Common sense' . Younus was given out 'Caught' when the appeal was for 'LBW' . Kallis was given out LBW when the appeal was for catch because the umpire on the ground thought he was out, he was given out for some reason or the other, whereas ABDevilliers at the end of the day was more out LBW than Kallis but was given 'Not out' since the umpire on the ground though so. If the sole purpose of the usage of DRS is to get as close to the correct decision, then am afraid it isn't in the right direction it is being implemented. Atleast taking the appeals away from the players and handing over to the umpires might be a better idea.

Posted by AAK.PAKISTANI on (February 16, 2013, 5:53 GMT)

Reivew is an investigation, how it happened. doesn't matter if it's LBW or a catch; end result, batsman is out. Same wayt Younus was given out.

Posted by strudi74 on (February 16, 2013, 5:48 GMT)

I honestly cannot understand why everyone is going on about the Younis Khan dismissal. You are trying to compare apples with onions in this case, as there was no doubt about the edge and the catch behind even though the appeal was for LBW. In the Kallis case he was also given out for a different mode of dismissal, the difference being that he was also NOT OUT in the second instance. That is what the apology is for, not because there was a second mode of dismissal. If Younis had not actually nicked the ball in his dismissal I would agree he is owed an apology too, but it is a completely different situation. I really hope some of the people leaving comments would start using some common sense before posting instead of having the "oh poor us everyone hates us" mentality.

Posted by sharidas on (February 16, 2013, 5:37 GMT)

I guess the rule should work equally for both teams. Now with DRS there are more questions asked than when it was with the on-field umpires. I am an old timer and still prefer the old times. But with the advent of TV and replays those days are gone forever.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 5:21 GMT)

I always thought that an appeal covered all bases so on that basis, giving Kallis out was the right decision.

Posted by Ray24 on (February 16, 2013, 5:15 GMT)

The ball was hitting the stumps so Kallis was out - for me it doesn't matter that the umpire reviewed for a catch of whatever. Out is out and justice was done. For me Kallis should be banned for three tests at least for questioning the umpires and setting a bad example for viewers and other sportsmen - you can do all the questioning after you are in the dressing room and follow the right path to lodge a complaint, but this is unacceptable! SA were actually at the luckier end of umpires decision and had Saeed not persisted with reviews, Smith, Amla would've still been there. Also, De Villiers was lucky to stay there, so DRS is a good way of getting more decisions right than wrong

Posted by Cricket_Man on (February 16, 2013, 5:13 GMT)

Yeah it's a gentleman's game. That's why Younis Khan walked off when the umpire gave him out and Kallis complained when given out. Figure out who the real gentleman is there. Nevertheless it's a good decision by ICC to accept its mistake but I think at least Kallis should be warned if not penalized for his unruly behavior against the umpire. Umpires made the wrong decision to give him out but you can't just stand there and show dissent to their decision. If you really feel bad about it, the most you can do is complain about it in the match report after the match is over.

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 16, 2013, 5:05 GMT)

@ Greatest_Game: Absolutely Not. Kallis has NO right to demand an explanation nor does he have any right to linger on the wicket after being given out. The laws are pretty clear on this one. The players can't pose those kind of questions to the umpires. When batsmen in the past have been reported and fined heavily for even staying at the wicket for more than acceptable duration after they were given out (rightly or wrongly) then how can anyone justify Kallis asking for an explanation from the umpire? Kallis had no right to do that and I hope the umpires/match referee takes note of this and fine him heavily. He should not go unpunished for this misdemeanor.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 5:02 GMT)

Well well well. Younus Khan went through the same when he was given out after the third umpire saw the faint edge and was given caught behind. The appeal was for LBW but thecnologfy rule the other way. I do not see why make such a fuss. Out is out whatever way,.

Posted by KunzMan on (February 16, 2013, 4:56 GMT)

To all pakistan fans out there jumping up and down about Younis Khan dismissal need to realise one thing. Younis Khan HIT the ball and so there is no such thing as umpire's call. Umpire's call is only to the extent of whether the ball is hitting the pads in line with the stumps or clipping / hitting the stumps. That is why comparing a batsman "Caught" and "LBW" is utterly farcical. Any way, well bowled Ajmal. May the best team win.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 4:55 GMT)

Agree, U cant compare Younis dismaissal to Kallis dismissal --- Im just confused why SA lost a referral when Kallis referred a Caught dismissal, which proved NOT OUT

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 4:52 GMT)

If the ICC admits a mistake. Why did South Africa Loose a referral??

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 16, 2013, 4:50 GMT)


TWO: The on field umpire says that the original appeal encompassed caught behind as well as lbw but he had rejected the lbw possibility and had accepted the caught behind possibility but which later turned out to be incorrect. So the umpire accepts his fault there and is willing to reverse that OUT decision (as he should). However, the umpire also sees that the Hawk-Eye projection shows lbw was indeed a possibility (though only just) and that the 3rd umpire leaves the final decision back to the on-field umpire saying it is umpire's call. Now, can someone tell me if Umpire's Call MUST ALWAYS mean that the original decision (NOT-OUT for lbw in this new Mode M2) HAS to stand? The umpire's call is umpire's call isn't it? He can go this way or that way depending upon the fresh evidence. In Kallis' case, umpire Davis chose to go with the OUT way as he thought the Hawk-Eye Projection was too strong to be ignored.


Posted by Kapil_Choudhary on (February 16, 2013, 4:50 GMT)

Why can't cricket just have a simple rule. Whenever there is a review - either by the umpire or the player - the third umpire should just give the correct decision irrespective of anything else - including the field umpire's original decision. This also means that the umpire's call should be removed and DRS should directly indicate out or not out. Yes - it may not be absolute 100% accurate but then, neither is the umpire's judgement.

Posted by drlimpel on (February 16, 2013, 4:49 GMT)

I just caught a repeat telecast of last day's play and I think people are ignoring a very important aspect of the debate- that of accuracy of hawkeye. The Pakistanis clearly went up in appeal first and foremost for the lbw shout. And its obvious why. With just the stump tracks and slo mo on, one can see that the ball hit Kallis on the right (off) side of the front pad and he wasn't forward a whole lot, but more importantly, half of his leg stump was visible. So basically a pretty adjacent lbw shout to the naked eye. But when Steve Davis was unmoved by the first appeal, the Pakistanis players kept appealing presumably for the bat pad, at which point Steve Davis finally relented. Which means that Steve Davis thought the lbw shout was pretty adjacent and the only problem in his opinion was an inside edge. When hotspot confirmed that there was none, he overturned his earlier decision in favor of an lbw decision. He obv. doesn't believe in the hawkeye tech too much and tbf it was "his call"

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 4:48 GMT)

I am disappointed with the comments here. It seems like most of you don't even read the article or that you do not comprehend what occurred.

It is not similar to Younis Khan's dismissal as the LBW was not blatantly out. As it was only clipping leg stump and the original decision for LBW was not out, it should remain not out. Had the ball been projected to hit the stumps cleanly, then it would be correct to give him out.

Posted by Harmony111 on (February 16, 2013, 4:48 GMT)


So in Kallis' case, the original decision that was for Caught Behind goes in the background (as it was not a catch anyways) and the new possibility of Kallis being lbw becomes the new subject for the review process (with the assumption that Kallis was given Not-Out) and the Hawk-Eye projection shows that the ball was clipping the top of leg stump.

Now there are 2 possibilities here.

ONE: The on field umpire looks at it totally afresh and says I had given a decision for Mode M1 for OUT but that turns out to be wrong. However, batsman may be out by Mode M2 and from a fresh PoV, it looks as though the ball would have disturbed the stumps (although only by just) so I reckon the batsman is out not by Mode M1 but by Mode M2 (when I consider M2 on its own as a totally new case). As per this Kallis was given out CORRECTLY.


Posted by Harmony111 on (February 16, 2013, 4:45 GMT)


Common sense will tell you that Kallis's dismissal was indeed ok. But some ppl really want to use the law with a pedantic approach and if even the ICC seems to be willing to say sorry then let me use that very approach to show that in that case too Kallis was validly given out and that there is no need for such a big rumpus.

As per ICC - Standard Test Match Playing Conditions, Appendix 2 the 2 apt laws here are Law 2.2 a clause iv & Law 3.3 f. Both of them state that while reviewing a certain decision, if the 3rd umpire finds the possibility of the batsman being out by a diff mode of dismissal then from that moment onwards, the review takes a new form where the review process will then address this new possibility but with the assumption that the batsman was originally given NOT-OUT by the on field umpire for this particular possibility. In other words, rather than as Batsman's Review it would be seen as a Fielding Side's Review (not for counting though).


Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 4:44 GMT)

What is done is done. Mistakes happen. In that case Yonus Khan was unlucky too.He was given out by DRS not the originaly appealed call. What matters is DRS has reduced the number of bad decisions. Only the Indians have to complain about it. All others seem to be satisfied.

Posted by KiwiRocker- on (February 16, 2013, 4:34 GMT)

Happy_AusBang: I can not agree with you anymore. You have hit the nail on head. Dave Richardson at ICC is hell bent to make sure ICC aplogoises. ICC is a toothless outfit that has no control of game of cricket. If there was a spirt of cricket award then this Pakistani team deserves that. They had bunch of rough decisions against India in ODi series and in first test, Pakistan received atleats four bad decisions. SA has been found out. They were hyping up before test series and Pakitstan batting has scored 289 and 338 in last two outings! It was shameful seeing a player of Kalli's calibre arguing with umpire. I rate Kallis very highly but he was arguing like how Indian players do! I do not care who wins or loses but I am very impressed the fightback of Pak team! I also will not read too much into first inning 49 All out as Misbah was given out incorrectly and he looked most assured Pak batsman in that entire test! SA never deserved to win first test. Their victory was tainted!

Posted by Simoc on (February 16, 2013, 4:27 GMT)

It all worked out right despite the rules. But again it should be out if the ball hits the stumps (forget the clip part). Leave it up to the third umpire with no referrals allowed by teams and send the batters packing. Currently the batsmen are favoured by DRS and the clipping nonsense. With no DRS, Kallis was out. Kaillis is so arrogant he doesn't want to know how the technology works. He'de rather complain like a little schoolboy, and that is what he does.

Posted by Narbavi on (February 16, 2013, 4:15 GMT)

@Shafqat Khattak : what are u talking about? Younis had nicked the ball so he was given out, kallis was given lbw by the third umpire, on field umpire hadn't given him out lbw, so if it was lbw then what's the on field umpire's decision as the ball only clipped the leg stump, it could have been both ways, since it was only clipping the leg stump the on field umpire could have either given it out or not out for the lbw, in this case he didn't even consider it!!

Posted by The.Duckpond on (February 16, 2013, 4:13 GMT)

The DRS law is very clear, I really don't understand why people are making a fuss and comparing this to the Younus Khan dismissal. The most important part of the law is this... "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" Apply that to Khan and he is still out as he got a touch and was caught. Apply that to Kallis and he is not out. The law is very clear, no double standards at all.

Posted by emrates on (February 16, 2013, 4:12 GMT)

lets guyz be clear....DRS is the best system if not minuplated...i have little doubt that like the sachin tendulkar servived decisions aganist saeed ajmal in 2011 quaterfinal..i doubt that all balls were missing stumps..reality is kallis is out and as well as younis ..whichever way they were given..they both were the best decisions taken by umpires..lets accept it...otherwise if DRS is not there than spinners like saeed ajmal who is the best in the world and only bowler who can bowl dosra will be unsuccessful without DRS...saeed ajmal aims to hit the wickets with ebery ball he bowls either its off spin or dosra...example being the wickets of grahme smith and amla today..both were given not out...but saeed took the reviews and he was sure the bowls were hitting the stumps so on both cases umpire had to change his decisions...saeed ajmal is genius bowler and its very hard to even umpire against him...if DRS is not sure...i swear that ajmal will only get around 60% of his decisions...

Posted by Crazy4cricket40 on (February 16, 2013, 4:08 GMT)

@ tests_the_best: so mr, whats diff b/w clipping and hitting. the ball was gone a hit/touch/clip/kiss the stump anyway. umpire thought he had nicked and gave him out, he never thought abt lbw but if he had not think abt nick, he would have given him out lbw. after all he is out.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 4:06 GMT)

Younis Khan was given out i n the same way kallis was given out... Kallis should be ashamed of himself crying like a spoil child...

Posted by Robster1 on (February 16, 2013, 4:00 GMT)

Very bad performance from all the match officials for Kallis's "dismissal". Why do they not know the rules ?

Posted by Dirk_L on (February 16, 2013, 3:58 GMT)

Well, top-level cricket umpires are chosen for their vast experience of the game, and in the case of on-field umpires, their sharp senses. They're not chosen for being excellent lawyers and court judges, and by and large that is a good thing.

Posted by drnaveed on (February 16, 2013, 3:50 GMT)

why just discussing kallis issue only, why not discussing about the 4 umpiring errors done by the third umpire (steve davis ) in the first test of the series , and they all went against Pakistan. where was icc then ???????. why it did'nt apologized than to the Pakistani team, why the SA commentators did'nt discussed about those 4 decisions which were because of the poor umpiring ,,perhaps , because they did'nt went against them. just one decision went against the SA , and see the whole world is crying, even icc had to come up in the limelight.this is ridiculous.

Posted by zenboomerang on (February 16, 2013, 3:39 GMT)

The article & the cricket laws do leave out another issue: "if" the field umpire thought that he knicked the ball then an LBW wouldn't come into play...

But if the field umpire was told there is no edge shouldn't the umpire be allow to change to a LBW call if he thought it was out, before the 3rd umpire gives his balling tracking answer?... There were always 2 options available in the original out decision...

Posted by tfjones1978 on (February 16, 2013, 3:34 GMT)

Given that they have realised that it was a mistake and since the innings has yet to conclude, why cant the match referee override the umpires decision and classify him as "retired not out", which means when the next wicket falls, he will return to the crease as not out on the score that he was given on. The fact that the umpires have admitted that they made a mistake, means that he is not out! Why risk South Africa loosing the match due to an umpire mistake that the umpires ADMIT that they made. Allow him to come back in at the fall of the next wicket which would be number 5.

Posted by aa61761 on (February 16, 2013, 3:31 GMT)

The ICC exlanation and the rule is pure nonsense. If TV umpire sees it's out then he should rule so, irrespective of the original mode of appeal.

Posted by vswami on (February 16, 2013, 3:30 GMT)

Arguably the greatest cricketer of all time, Jacques Kallis feels DRS is rubbish and unreliable. And we have two bit amateurs trying to justify it here.

Posted by SSManyam on (February 16, 2013, 3:28 GMT)

Why lot off fuss is going around dismissals when DRS is accurate and reliable as of ICC words. Why ICC has come down to give an explanation regarding a dismissal, when it saying DRS is correct. Why pakistan is unhappy with Younis khans cotravesy dismissal, if DRS is correct. There are so many questions about the accuracy of DRS, which INDIA is questioning and being blamed for that. What is DRS ???????????????????? accuracy. All the questions about DRS but no answers.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 3:27 GMT)

But is it really the case that Umpire Davis had ruled that the ball was not going to hit the stumps? He had ruled that the ball had hit the bat, and this decision was overturned. But given his initial ruling, there is no reason to suspect that he had made a ruling on the trajectory of the ball. Thus, it seems to strain credulity a little to conclude that there even was an on-field decision which should be deferred to.

Posted by Swingit on (February 16, 2013, 3:16 GMT)

@tests_the_best has it correct but for one slight confusion in his explanation. Once the third umpire sees it is not out by the original on field call (in Kallis case caught) but it is out by another method (Kallis case LBW) then the info is given to the on-field umpire but it is NOT his call as you assert. Rather it automatically becomes a NOT OUT call irregardless (so saying his call was not out LBW is technically wrong since no solicitation would be made as to what is his call for the newly discovered mode of dismissal it's just deemed to be a not out call). Then the question becomes whether the 3rd umpire has sufficient evidence within the rules of DRS to overturn the DEEMED not out on-field call. In Kallis' case as you rightly point out the newly discovered mode of dismissal (LBW) could not be overturned because DRS showed the ball just clipping leg stump which would not be enough to overturn the "deemed' not out on-feild call. Just clearing up a technicality.

Posted by jwayong on (February 16, 2013, 3:15 GMT)

Why is the "mode of dismissal shall then be conducted as if the batsman has been given not out."?

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 3:01 GMT)

That was unforgivable!!, the third umpire should be ashamed. Its decisions like these which can affect a players career and in some cases the outcome of a match,This was a serious stuff up and should never be allowed to happen again.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 2:58 GMT)

A lot of things cleared up, and makes a lot of sense. Everyone whose bringing up Younis Khan's dismissal; please read the rules again. Younis would've been given out regardless of what the on-field Umpire's call would've been because he had knicked it to the keeper.

As far as the previous test's hot spot decisions are concerned, I do advocate the fact that the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsmen. DRS was responsible for quite a few shoddy decisions in the recent series between Australia and West Indies as well with both sides having to face its sometimes unfair consequences.

Posted by Rahulbose on (February 16, 2013, 2:31 GMT)

Another day another nail in the DRS coffin. The only people who benefit from this mess are the inventors and tech companies and maybe Giles Clarke.

Posted by JFAB on (February 16, 2013, 2:23 GMT)

I agree with mincing. The umpire had not ruled on LBW ( because he had thought it hit the bat). You could assume he had ruled on the LBW because the catch came later but he thought there as an edge. Billy should have said "no edge, what is your call on the LBW?" then davis could have said out or not out to him and then proceeded with th LBW evaluation. there seems to be an assumption that davis be default ruled not out on the LBW - I think he did not rule on the LBW at that point. By the way, I think it was dissent for kallis to stand in the middle after the review and argue. He should have left. He ha sno right to question the umpire, only to ask for a review. There is no right for the batsman to interrogate the umpire or discuss the decisiosn and its reasons (umpires can volunteer opinions if they wish). Kallis should be censured for this behaviour

Posted by SK14 on (February 16, 2013, 2:21 GMT)

If both common sense and technology say its OUT then its OUT. If evidance was found from the video replay that it was actually LBW and not caught at short leg then why not use this evidance to make the decision making proces fairer!!. I'm sorry but ICC has made a real mess of its law, just use common sense with technology and at least cricket will get justice.

Posted by Prinzzzz on (February 16, 2013, 2:05 GMT)

Now I know y BCCI says "NO" to DRS.... ICC still not covering all the mistakes of DRS. DRS is making more error each day...

Posted by SJ_NR on (February 16, 2013, 1:41 GMT)

Scrap DRS - the cricketing world was much better off accepting human errors. Now you have ICC scrambling to explain everything as an 'honest' error, and trying to suggest that if it is honest it cannot be an error. Jokers!

Posted by   on (February 16, 2013, 1:13 GMT)

I don't quite understand why people are equating Kallis dismissal with that of Younis one. The rule clearly states, as mentioned in the article, that the LBW decision should have been Umpire's call which would be NOT OUT, since he wasn't given out LBW in the first place. Younis case was a clear cut OUT because the substitute dismissal was a catch, where DRS LBW rule doesn't apply. People should understand the point mentioned here rather than blindly criticizing for the sake of it.

Posted by SL_Boy on (February 16, 2013, 0:50 GMT)

end of the day it was a another human error.

Posted by Meety on (February 16, 2013, 0:47 GMT)

The right decision was made ultimately, the rules need to be adjusted so that if there is a dismissal that is certainly out (regardless of the mode), the batsmen should be out. I can see why there was confusion - again it is NOT the technology - just the implementation.

Posted by JustIPL on (February 16, 2013, 0:44 GMT)

Same happened to the Younis in first innings that DRS technology found an edge. I am not worried about it if Kallis was found out by any other method because technology was on umpire's disposal. ICC rules can be amended to accomodate this.

Posted by Ms.Cricket on (February 16, 2013, 0:38 GMT)

Billy Bowden makes umpteen mistakes as an umpire, on the field and off it.

Posted by am5786 on (February 16, 2013, 0:37 GMT)

Shaun Pollock was right immediately after the decision he said original decision was out and it was umpires call so Kallis is out and he has no right to stay or ask umpire why he has given out. After day has passed by ICC and South Africans are saying umpire didn't give LBW. I agree with some comments ICC has shown double standard.

Posted by Thandiwe on (February 16, 2013, 0:12 GMT)

I have a problem here. If the Umpire judged the batsman out caught, it meant that he never judged LBW. So why should the third umpire be restricted to the Umpire's call, as not out. No call was made. The law needs reviewing, it is an emotional rule and not a rational one.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (February 15, 2013, 23:58 GMT)

@Paras Dua on (February 15, 2013, 20:19 GMT), noone's hiding from anything. The rule does allow for a batsman to be given out on review for a mode of dismissal that the fielding side didn't appeal for and the on-field umpire didn't rule on. The issue here is purely and simply that ball-tracking put the point of contact with the stumps within the margin of error and therefore it remains the call of the on-field umpire. Now, in this case we don't know whether the on-field umpire thought that the ball would have hit the stumps or not but, if he thought it hit the bat, he probably didn't even consider it so what should they do? This is a bit of a grey area with DRS and such things will improve with time and use. For the opponents of DRS, Kallis would have been out without it anyway so it's hard to see how DRS has actually hurt anyone in this case.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 23:57 GMT)

I am bemused and quite saddened by the SA crying sour grapes. A total lack of sportsmanship... Jack Kallas lost all respect! Its not the first time a team appeals for an LBW or catch. Once an Umpire has given it out; then it is out, whatever the mode of dismissal. Even Skysports commentator clarified that they had appealed for both; LBW and catch. Nothing new and nothing bizarre in that. Also remember, it is not Pakistan that challenged it, but Kallas and only for a catch. Now if the umpire in his mind gave it out thinking it was a catch, then I don't understand why a fielding team should be penalized for it. Whatever the mode of the dismissal; the original decision of out is for all modes of dismissal. When an umpire raises his finger, there is no clause in there that says 'I am only giving it out for a valid catch'; well at least there wasn't until today, unless SA are claiming there was, and the ICC is conspiring with SA- which is a real shame and sad for cricket.

Posted by fshafiq on (February 15, 2013, 23:55 GMT)

I think the DRS should be tweaked by giving an extra review to the appealing team every time the umpires decision is overturned. SA ininings was terribly officiated. Pakistan didnt get any benefit of doubt from the umpires. All three lbw decisions were given after the reviews even though couple of them were pretty straightforward. Had AB de Villiers given out by umpire it would have stayed out even after the review. Pakistan were lucky that the outs were not marginal. Even though with the Kallis decision i think SA still got the better end of the stick. Thats why the DRS system should be used to minimize the damage of bad umpiring especially for not so powerful and influential teams. If the outs were marginal the 2 lbw's would not have been overturned and SA would have been sitting pretty on 170-180 for 2 down.

Posted by LillianThomson on (February 15, 2013, 23:54 GMT)

Nobody died.

A batsman was given out lbw to a delivery which pitched in line and would have clipped the stumps.

Justice is more important than the precise process of the playing conditions, and the outcome was just.

I feel sorry for Kallis, but its an honest error of application which delivered a fair outcome.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (February 15, 2013, 23:52 GMT)

I think that it's been mentioned by others but one issue with the rule as stated by the ICC is that there is an assumption that the on-field umpire would have ruled not out for LBW if he had known that Kallis hadn't hit the ball. DRS said umpire's call but we don;t actually know whether the on-field umpire thought that Kallis was out LBW or not. That said, rules are rules and they weren't followed on this occasion, but the fact that this has happened will highlight this issue and ensure that the rule is followed next time. Once again, noone has ever claimed that DRS is perfect but, even in this one innings, we have seen that it has resulted in more correct decisions than would have occurred without it. Opponents of DRS will jump on this one slightly erroneous dismissal that may well have been out regardless and ignore the occasions where DRS was used to correct and obviously wrong decision. Finally, I doubt Kallis has actually polled enough players to say that 99% don't trust DRS.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 23:48 GMT)

I don't agree with their explanation. If a bowler or a batsmen asking for a review, umpires job is to simply check that in this delivery whether it is OUT or NOT OUT. If they appealed for it, they have a right to see if they are getting the wicket in this delivery or not. It should not matter whether it is lbw or a caught behind. OUT is OUT, NOT OUT is NOT OUT. Simple as that.

Posted by PureTom on (February 15, 2013, 23:42 GMT)

Younis Khan was caught behind, there is no doubt there. Kallis was given out on an "Umpires Call" when no Umpire had made that call. Either way I am happy with the result. I'd rather the arguement be over minor technicalities than rank howlers which is what the system is meant to eradicate. In both cases the batsman can fairly be given out even though Kallis may have survived given the right circumstances.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 23:21 GMT)

The 3rd umpire should be the King. Using DRS, he/she should be able to overrule the field umpire completely. The LBW rule even for seam bowlers should be changed to 'hitting the stumps; never mind whether in line or not, because it is leg before wicket, had the batsman's body not avoided the ball, it would have hit the stumps. That's OUT. Everything favours the batsman these days. That needs to change.

Posted by srriaj317 on (February 15, 2013, 23:20 GMT)

Technology and DRS are working fine enough...the problem lies with the people using it. Some umpires look like they never made it past school when they make blunders with the interpretation of data. I think they need to be put through science experimental courses so that they know how to interpret, analyse and use data to make good decisions. Once done, the DRS's success rate can move from 97% upto 99%.

Posted by NAP73 on (February 15, 2013, 23:11 GMT)

Swings and roundabouts... Pakistan were unlucky re DRS in the first test, now it is Saf's turn. However, there is so much inconsistency and confusion (+ delays, lack of funding in some countries etc) with DRS, that they should just scrap the 'experiment' (call it that to have a 'get out') and refer back to umpires on the field only. However, there is also a need to ensure umpire ability improves (seems to have decreased, possibly because they know they can just rely on DRS?) and only the best are selected (build up appropriate experience - including learning from mistakes - before umpiring the top nations).

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 23:07 GMT)

The only point I want to make is that this situation is nothing like the Younis decision and those who think it is have absolutlely no understanding of what happened. Younis was given NOT OUT. It makes no deifference what the appeal was for. He edged it and was caught. Umpire's decision has no bearing in that case.

Kallis was given out caught. here was no edge. The ball was shown to be feathering leg stump. Umpire's on-field decision has EVERYTHING to do with the decision then. Even Steve Davis wouldn't have upheld that LBW shout. Anyway, the law is clear and the article is clear. The situations are completely diferent. The umpires got it wrong yesterday and right the day before.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 22:54 GMT)

Kallis should have been given out if the ball was going to hit the stumps. In short the DRS needs to ensure the integrity of dismissals. If a batsman is out, they're out, if not, they are not. Having limited appeals is not enough. the 3rd umpire should over-ride all decisions without any need for an appeal.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 22:54 GMT)

That's good explaination came in. I think it has nothing to do with drs, its how umpires interpret evidence and rules. In 1st test, some hotspot decisions wete reversed when there wasn't enough evidence. In aus, wi series recently another such instance happened. Its how they translate things. So these shouldn't be termed as technology faliure.

Umpire call rule is also making it more confusing. Why can't they simply give it out if even 1% is kissing stumps?

Steve davis is below standard.1st test controversal decisions as 3rd umpire, this test gave younas out, reversed. Gave 2 not outs- reversed on pak referals. Just in 2 days. There shoud be a ranking system for umpires now.

Posted by KiwiRocker- on (February 15, 2013, 22:51 GMT)

Everyone seems to talk about Pak getting out 49in first inning of first test but it is ignored that Pak's most settled batsmen in that inning was misbah who was given out incorrectly. SA in their first inning had Faf, Devilliers given incorrectly not out. SA would have been bundled out for less than 200 and Pak if Misbah was given correctly not out could eaisly drag to 100+. In second inning, again SA benefited as Devillers enjoyed again some good support from Steve Devies. SA was not a worthy winner of first test match! Ok, there is some ambiguity abt Kallis dismissal, but so was case with Younis. SA team is a bunch of chokers who were hyping themselves about Pak batting line up!This is same Pak batting that has scored 289 and 338 in last two innings! Which is better than so called mighty batting line ups such as India. Pak is without their best fast bowler Junaid but SA is still going down! SA is not as good team as it is made out to be! Lean from Pak, 5 decisions went against them!

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 22:48 GMT)

A fair few people here obviously havent read the article properly, South africa have stated they were happy with the explanation, not "crying and whining" over it as you seem to think. @vrn59's comment also shows why the dismissals of Younis Khan and Jacques Kallis are different. Most of the fans need to get over themselves, quite how you can think pakistan are the only sporting team in the world, and all the rest are just cheating/ whining/ unsporting is quite frankly, hilarious. A look back through your history may prove otherwise...

Posted by Fearless_Greens on (February 15, 2013, 22:42 GMT)

Based on this rule Younis Khan's out was justified whereas Kallis's wasnt. However the rule is unfair in case of LBW because it is not justified to assume umpire's call as not out. We have seen that on-field umpires give out to such appeals i.e. where ball is just brushing the leg stump. When that is referred then 3rd umpire maintains the call of on-field umpire. Also, umpires, based on their judgement, may or may not give out to such appeals. And if we start analyzing the decisions of such appeals in the last 3-4 years then I am sure the ratio of Not out Vs Out will be 70%-30% at least. Hence it boils down to the judgement of on-field umpire and assuming that LBW is not out in this scenario is totally unfair. In my opinion, 3rd umpire should be allowed to decide at his own whether its out or not out when considering LBW in this particular situation.

Posted by wakaPAK on (February 15, 2013, 22:41 GMT)

@chris54 : That would have been a great idea if SA had done the same to Pak batsmen in case of some debatable DRS decisions in the first test. My point is that out is out and nobody should take unfair advantage behind 'rules' or in your case should blindfold your eyes with a page of rules and say 'I cant see'. Do not let the ball hit your pads, good batsmen use the bat. How simple can it get? Mankading is a legitimate out, yet we do not support it, simply because it's 'unfair'. And if someone brings the pad between the ball and the wicket, he's out and you want to somehow project the rules to make him not out. It's not a court and cricket is not lawyer vs lawyer; it's player vs player.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 22:31 GMT)

@teststhebest. Yes, but maybe the on field ump would have given him out lbw if he hadn't thought it hit the bat. I forgive the umpires for this one.

Posted by Baundele on (February 15, 2013, 22:25 GMT)

Third umpires are putting the DRS into dispute. Technology is good enough; but the umpires are not applying it correctly.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 22:24 GMT)

i don't think there is any wrong in technology.... it worked and good decision was given because it was umpire call..... "Law 27.4 says that the appeal covers ALL manners of out". so if its cover every thing then it out.... ICC should give comments by following there own own rules..... Legend like kallis should have walked always it was childish act not leaving the field like we do in street cricket don't leave the bat and run away with bat....

Posted by cricpolitics on (February 15, 2013, 22:15 GMT)

It is a big assumption to make that the on field umpire would have given not out had the appeal been for an LBW. I'm not sure if the on field umpire was consulted before the third umpire gave Kallis out LBW but If the on field umpire was consulted then I don't see what the fuss is all about.

Posted by skkh on (February 15, 2013, 21:58 GMT)

Why is there such a hue and cry over the Kallis decision? No one questioned when a similar decision was given against Younus Khan !!! What is wrong in the decision? The batsman was out, maybe not caught but was out leg before. A correct decision was made against Younus and now against Kallis.

Posted by Papa_Tango on (February 15, 2013, 21:54 GMT)

As a pakistan supporter there is not way I would oppose DRS- imagine how many outs pakistan would have had today with Davis umpiring. No way, Jose as we say here in the United States. Would give up the occasional Younis khan out for the three Davis overturns. As I have said previously: appeal for everything and then wait for the umpire to decide which to adjudicate.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 21:37 GMT)

Younis was given out by the 3rd umpire for a caught behind even RSA appealed for an LBW, because there was a clear nick and that decision doesn't depend on the on field umpire's call...But in the case of Kallis he was given out for an LBW while they were appealing for a caught. 3rd Umpire confirmed that there was no bat on that and through hawk eye the ball was clipping the leg stump and it would have been declared Umpire's call. In this case 3rd umpire can be able to rule him out only if the ball is hitting the stump fully not clipping. because the review for LBW is so much dependent of on field umpire's call. So Billy should have been asked Davis whether he gave out for LBW or Caught before he declared it himself. That's it guys. I don't think there were much to understand if u remove your supporting mask. We are cricket lover so please let the good game and good decisions to go on and then we can support out favourite Teams. This is a gentlemen Game so please be gentle all over.:)

Posted by Navaidzuberi on (February 15, 2013, 21:35 GMT)

In Kallis dismissal, umpire can only give one decision for out, either caught or lbw. He gave bat/pad out because he thinks that Kallis had nicked the ball. Upon DRS review, Umpires cannot ask third umpire "pls check it for all options, bat/pad, lbw etc. Umpire's call was "OUT", It must be considered "OUT" in all aspects of reviews by third umpire. I don't agree with the interpretation of the playing conditions 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". It's bit illogical

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 21:29 GMT)

Kallis should be fined heavily for bringing the game of cricket into disrepute........out or not out ....errors or non errors I have watched Kallis play cricket since a kid (before international) but as a cricket lover what Kallis did is not on and saddens me

Posted by rar-m on (February 15, 2013, 21:26 GMT)

Is it just me or does DRS controversy seem to follow Kallis everywhere he goes?

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 21:24 GMT)

This is stupid. The appeal should be AGAINST the decision, not FOR a decision. In every other sport the referee would not require the right appeal to give a decision. If there is a goal, he will give a goal, whether or not the other team appealed.

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

If less than half the ball is hiiting the stumps. It is still hitting the stumps. If we don't accept this fact, then we should play with 2 stumps instead of 3. The bias in DRS towards "umpires call" is not only unfair to the players and the game , it violates basic principles of justice. The arguments used in favour of the "umpires call" feature range from "DRS is there to catch big mistakes not small ones" to "Benefit of the doubt", to "DRS is not accurate enough" to " umpires can't be expected to make small judgements with the naked eye so if its a small mistake , DRS should favor the umpires. These are inadeqaute arguments and stem from a authoritarian mindset that sacrifices basic principles of fairness and equality. I love DRS. I do not watch games that do not have it. I vote with my remote control. But let it be free. If the umpire feels embarrased by having his decision overturned if the ball is only clipping, then he is not a fair individual and shouldn't be umpiring.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 21:16 GMT)

I would like to re-emphasize: Davis did NOT rule not-out on the LBW, he ruled out on bat-pad. If the bat-pad ruling is incorrect, this does NOT imply that he ruled not-out on LBW. He may have ruled out on LBW had he not thought it was a bat-pad.

Clearly Bowden and/or Davis thought the LBW decision was out after much deliberation and they should be commended for making the right call.

Younis's dismissal was also the right call, admittedly that was less doubtful than the Kallis LBW.

I don't think SA should lose a referral since Kallis correctly challenged his bat-pad decision, however, people claiming Kallis to be unjustly given out should consider the above.

Posted by khalid4eyes on (February 15, 2013, 21:14 GMT)

A lot of fuss has been made out of Kallis's dismissal. Only yesterday Younis Khan was given not out by Steve Davis for an LBW appeal. DRS showed that he had edged the ball. The South Africans had not appealed for a catch. The third umpire made the right decision by giving Younis out caught behind. In Kallis's case the third umpire has also made the right call by giving him out. Both are very similar. The umpires are the ones who are making the mockery of DRS by not being professional enough to make the right calls. Umpire's call is creating all the bias and if the ball is clipping any part of the stumps then it should be given out. The ball only needs to clip the edge of a stump to knock the bail off. If the ICC changed the way umpire's call is adjudicated, then none of the controversies will arise and teams will not be penalised for losing reviews which they should not. In this series most of the DRS decisions have gone in favour of South Africa and that cannot be right.

Posted by Interzod on (February 15, 2013, 21:12 GMT)

Kallis should have reviewed. Now that would have been interesting!

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 21:11 GMT)

ICC did that in a bit of hurry. Given him caught that does not mean davis did not think that the ball was not going to hit the stumps or not. That was all up to the Umpire and he is the only one who can make it clear....

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 21:08 GMT)

Pakistani keeper and Ajmal was appealing for the LBW as they went straight up when ball hit the pad but Steve Davis couldn't judged a single LBW decision right in this inning ...very pathetic umpiring to say the least.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 21:05 GMT)

This is shameful statement from ICC. ICC need mature people. Now ICC (PCT) should also admit about errors they made in decisions (does not matter if it was technology error or umpire's error) in previous match. Misbah was not out in first innings. He did not stay there and asked umpires why he was given out. I am just imagining if he did that then he would have been fined for his act. ICC PCT please grow up and please not give such shameful statments

Posted by Papa_Tango on (February 15, 2013, 21:02 GMT)

This is very strange and probably will not happen again. But given the 3.3 then if I was fielding I would appeal for both the caught and the lbw. Then what? The umpire will have to make up his mind as to which appeal to entertain? And then give an out. In today's case that would have meant that had Davis given out lbw and kallis thinking he was given out caught would appeal and be given out. But if Davis had given out caught(as he did) then he would be not out!


Posted by ALiQamar on (February 15, 2013, 21:00 GMT)

Same thing happened to younis khan in first innings, not saying whether it is right or wrong decision; but pointing only kallis dismissal is definitely not justified..

Posted by Desihungama on (February 15, 2013, 21:00 GMT)

"99% of cricketers," do not trust it. Well, let's take a genius guess. Of course they don't trust it. Because it is only players that are affected by DRS which can potentially do right a wrong or vice versa.

Posted by PFEL on (February 15, 2013, 20:58 GMT)

Wow, what a big deal made about nothing. A tiny rule error at most. Compare that to the recent Aus summer, in particular the ODIs where I can personally remember 3 occasions where the 3rd umpire made completely wrong decisions with the DRS when it was obvious what the right decision was. Why isn't the ICC making an apology about those?

Posted by born2DIE on (February 15, 2013, 20:57 GMT)

I am wondering that what would be happened if Steve Davis thought as Kallis must be out lbw even if he didn't snick the ball

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 20:55 GMT)

Why are SA crying now, when they got Younas out yesterday the DRS was excellent rule and now when the same went against them they are crying, even worse came from ICC for explanation to SA.What a double standard of ICC.Jack Kallis made a fuss on field and challenging the umpire decision, why is not he fined for code of conduct breach. Salute to Yonas khan who left the field regardless if it was catch or LBW.

Posted by TestDaBest on (February 15, 2013, 20:53 GMT)

So ICC apologizes for this, even though the rule clearly states that it is the umpires call and last time I checked even the third umpire is an umpire, so I don't see the problem in that and also like all our S African friends were going on about common sense in decision making after the first test howlers from the umpires they should not mourn about this dismissal.

At the end of the day common sense prevailed and on the same note the ICC and umpires should apologize for all the blunders they made in the first test to Pakistan team but they won't as PCB isn't as influential financially that it can scare ICC. Double standards are the biggest problem in the cricket world.

I think if the review goes to the third umpire then the original decision should be rejected all together and the decision should only be based on the evidence it will get rid of all this confusion.

Posted by ilyas_US on (February 15, 2013, 20:51 GMT)

Hey ICC what is your view about Younus khan's out !!

Posted by EverybodylovesSachin on (February 15, 2013, 20:44 GMT)

if 99% percent do not trust the system, remove DRS from test cricket. Out is an OUT whether caught or LBW. They reviewed it and right decision was made. It should not be based on appeals for what they were asking and what was given at that time and could be given out differently or not.

Posted by Cricket_theBestGame on (February 15, 2013, 20:43 GMT)

justice is done. younis was out in exactly the same fashion. the situation was reversed in his case. he was asked for lbw and given caught behind. then why kallis was crying about this.

@Alex400 - i agree with you. steyn is not world's no bowler as he goes hot and cold. phlilander is the same. it proves from the fact when shine went off the ball until new ball was taken both bowlers were mediocre. they had no answer to batting of younis and asad who btw were bundled out in 49 runs in the first test and didn't do much in the 2nd innings either. so my question to all those experts like ian chapel etc is if steyn and philander are world class then why can't they bowl like the way they bowl in seemer friendly condition like in SA, Eng and NZ anywhere else??? if no shine on the ball, no pitch assistant, these two are pretty mush like any other bowler around, average!

Posted by Mitcher on (February 15, 2013, 20:41 GMT)

I completely agree that Younis should be congratulated for leaving the field without fuss in a confusing situation. But it doesn't change the fact that according to the rules of the game as currently written, he was correctly given out, whereas Kallis dismissal was a wrong interpretation. It was not out. Anyone disagreeing misunderstands the rules. I think some Pakistan fans need to take a deep breath. The world is not against you. In fact I think many many neutrals, myself included, would love to see them win.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 20:29 GMT)

Im sorry golgo_85 could you please clarify how someone blatantly hitting the ball and being caught is similar to someone being given out caught when they didnt hit it then the ball tracker technology showing it may have clipped leg stump ? everyone is assuming that SA appealed for LBW when they could quite easily have been appealing for the catch ? either way time to move on but please dont try questioning Kallis intergrity over an honest mistake that the ICC have admitted to

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 20:27 GMT)

according to 22.4 an appeal refers to all sorts of Outs not just the when its aimed for! so the one 3.3.f does not hold then!

Posted by Gobans on (February 15, 2013, 20:27 GMT)

When a batsman faces a ball, he tries to nick it, caught by wicket keeper and he clips the bails for a run out/stumping then the bowling team appeals...the on field umpire doesn't really know what are they appealing for...and hence says not out thinking that the appeal is for a catch...If then the bowling team reviews the decision and the third umpire has all the time to check if its a catch by keeper/LBW/Runout/Stumping...So he has more options to chose from...This is atrocious..On field umpire should inform the third umpire what his decision is for? OR atleast the players (both teams) should inform the officials what they are appealing for..?

Posted by Clara74 on (February 15, 2013, 20:22 GMT)

Common guys... We know cricket is an gentleman's game right? if so when the ball hit in the bat younis has to go even umpire didn't give him out. there is no reason for reviewing unless younis didn't feel that he hit the ball. so in khalis case he was given out for a catch and he was sure that he didn't hit the ball so he went for review but if he was given for LBW he may not go for review. so at least they should have their review attempts. So I believe this is a situation that technology used in wrong way to give right decession. If that's good then i believe third umpire should involve to give the right decission s allways even without a review.

Posted by Happy_AusBang on (February 15, 2013, 20:21 GMT)

This is atrocious from ICC. There is no consistency. If the DRS should not have ruled on the other mode of dismissal for Kallis (lbw), it should not have ruled on the caught behind for Younus Khan toon. Where is the apology to him? Pakistan has been suffering for a very long time from bad umpiring. Things only started turning a bit (pardon the pun) in the Emirates last year with the DRS decisions enabling Pakistan to whitewash England. In this series Pakistan is getting the rough end of it from the umpires/DRS. Misbah should not have been given out in the 1st innings of the 1st test as Kallis was let off earlier with the same evidence. There were no less than 4 decisions that went against Pakistan. And this time when DRS did make the correct decision we have ICC declaring it was a decision in error. That is shameful! Pakistan should have had De Villiers as well but because on-filed umpire gave him not out it his decision held. ICC should have a good look at the umpiring standards.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 20:19 GMT)

It is the ICC hyphocracy. No explanation to Pakistan in the last match when the umpire I mean the third umpire made blunders on saveral occasions. Every time he made the wrong decision. But the ICC said that they wont change the official as Pakistan complained. But today when the SA asked for an explanation then the ICC said it made an "Honest Error". What is this? There is nothing wrong with the technology or DRS. The ICC needs to review its umpires panel and removed the Biased and inefficient umpires. The ICC also needs not to be hypocratic and biased. It needs to neutral and the so the umpires.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 20:19 GMT)

I'm rather bemused at how law makers can create thousands of clauses to weave around or duck under what's fair! If you want to use technology, why all these ifs and buts? A dismissal is a dismissal, whether LBW or caught out! The batsman has no right continuing if he's out and you're using tech. Either don't use DRS at all, or if you're using it, use it to give the right or fair decision - whether LBW or caught out or run out or stumped or bowled or hit wicket or handling the ball or obstructing the field!! Why hide from a dismissal under the pretext of the mode of dismissal that the original appeal was for?

Posted by mincing on (February 15, 2013, 20:17 GMT)

Ahmed Bajwa - exactly what I was trying to say. Once the catch was disproved on field Ump should have been given the chance to save if he would have been out LBW or not.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 20:14 GMT)

This proves the point again why BCCI is against DRS system. It becomes more confusing for the officials to decide. Cricket is a game which requires lots of human intelligence and is best played when humans (i.e. umpires) are involved and not machines. The best example is latest India v England test series. Lot of times it is seen that even the teams are not sure as to when to use it and most often than not it goes against the team who calls for a review.

Posted by 124ahmed on (February 15, 2013, 20:14 GMT)

well at the end of the day kallis decision was umpire's error. i dont understand icc admiting the error. in 1st test there were few decisions against pakistan (both technology and umpiring failures) icc didnt make acall that time. secondly i dont understand the term on-field umpire's call. i mean if the ball is hitting the stumps its hiting. asking about to hit the good part of the ball is just ridiculous. in kallis decesion the ball is hiting the stumps thats out.

Posted by theCricketPurist on (February 15, 2013, 20:12 GMT)

It is correct. Kallis was unfairly given out. The appeal for the Kallis dismissal was originally for a catch. The umpire gave it out as caught and Kallis reviewed. The replays confirmed that there was no edge, but showed the ball's trajectory to clip the top of leg stump. Due to this the decision stayed with the "umpire's call". Now this was indeed wrong because the umpire's decision was out caught, and NOT lbw. The replay's result was "umpire's call", but we must remember that the umpire's call was not-out for the lbw decision. Thus, Kallis should have been given not out. The main difference between the 2 dismissals (Kallis and Younis Khan) was that in case of a catch, it's either out OR not-out. But in case of lbw there is a third option - umpire's call. So while Younis was clearly out caught, Kallis was unlucky since the correct "umpire's call" in his case was not-out (for the lbw).

Posted by mincing on (February 15, 2013, 20:09 GMT)

But Steve Davis clearly thought Kallis hit the ball hence the original decision, so he would not have considered if the ball would have hit the stumps or not so he has not made a decision on the LBW. If he thought Kallis had not hit it the how do we know he would not have given him out LBW

Posted by golgo_85 on (February 15, 2013, 20:08 GMT)

People who are saying that the Younis dismissal was any different than the Kallis one, is absolutely shamelessly kidding themselves. The only difference is that like other graceful legends like Lara and Gilchrist, Younis walked away whereas too much fuss was created by Kallis. So many mistakes had been made by on field umpires over the years, I always wondered why 3rd umpires had never been allowed to get involved when they could clearly see when a wrong decisions was made, that could've eased things up a fair bit leading to the acceptance of DRS now. I'm an Englishman and I watched the Sri-Pak to it's entirety to much disgust where Younis was denied potentially 2 centuries through rubbish umpiring. And why is Steve Davis still allowed to umpire, I don't know. This is shameful from ICC.

Posted by BowledYa on (February 15, 2013, 20:07 GMT)

I am confused. So if the 3rd umpire cannot withhold any information and it did provide info that Kallis was out LBW then would they not tell the on-field umpire and then given out LBW by the on-field umpire? Regardless, the fact is that Kallis WAS out. Don't understand ICC's position in this case at all.

Posted by Alexk400 on (February 15, 2013, 20:06 GMT)

Rules are bad. Umpires should have all mode of dismissal even if he did n't call it first time. If he aware that player dislodged bails or bails fell and he did n't notice or even LBW in this case should right. We want correct decision made if he is out even in other ways even umpire did not call first time. Its rule that is at fault. Not umpires.Kallis is out.

That said i am wondering what would SA do if there is no philander. Steyn goes ON and OFF. Morkel even with height never takes 5 wickets. They need replacement for morkel.

Posted by chris54 on (February 15, 2013, 20:04 GMT)

There is a spanish proverb which goes something like this: " There is no man as blind as he who doesn´t wish to see". My point being that in spite of it being explained in such a way so as to leave no doubts, that the Younis dismissal was correct, some people are trying to justify the error in the Kallis dismissal as fair compensation for Younis. Younis was correctly given out, as per. the laws of the game. The same laws state that Kallis should not have been given out. Wouldn´t it be a wonderful gesture by the Pakistan team to invite Kallis to continue his innings tomorrow.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 20:03 GMT)

After all said and done both batsmen were OUT in simple cricket terms and technolodgy proved it. Younus was out caught behind and Kallis was out LBW. This is according to what the third umpire saw after applying the technolodgy. Now how can one be "legitimate out" and the other is a "mistake". ICC need to think about it. And another thing - If using technolodgy then use it all the way.. if according to DRS the ball is hitting the stumps its OUT ! no matter how much of the ball is hitting the stumps. Will it not dislodge the bails?? Come on ICC make some sense ! !

Posted by Smahuta on (February 15, 2013, 20:02 GMT)

Call him back then. Its the right thing to do.

Posted by Greatest_Game on (February 15, 2013, 20:02 GMT)

@ ahsenkhan on (February 15, 2013, 18:52 GMT) How would Kallis know that he is out if the appeal is for a catch and the ball did NOT touch the bat. He knew he was not out for bat-pad. The umpire had not given him out for lbw, Was Kallis supposedly to magically know that the ball might have clipped leg stump when no-one even appealed for lbw?

Kallis knew that he was not out. He also has the right to an explanation in a case WHEN THE UMPIRES MADE A MISTAKE, as the ICC admits.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 20:01 GMT)

I think the DRS is fine as to help the umpires to make the right decisions. But the umpires need to use it rightly. In the previous match there were so many errors by the third umpire Steve Davis. He gave Duplessi and De Veliers not by reviewing the onfield umpire decisions and reversed them but he did not had sufficient evidence to overrule the on field decisons. like wise he reversed Misbah not out. In these 3 decisions, the evidences were the same. It was the inefficiency and inability on the 3rd umpire Steve Davis and looked to me Biased towards Pakistan. The ICC or match official did not give any explanation. But today they said they made an error. It is rediculous. It's too biased. I know this was a wrong decison and were wrong decisions in the last match as well. All theses decisons were made by the same umpire. There is and there was nothing wrong with the DRS. It helps to correct the errors/blunders made by some biased umpires...

Posted by bumsonseats on (February 15, 2013, 19:56 GMT)

i turned on late afternoon were mike ( that's for sure ) haysman was talking about younis khan dismissal yesterday, not having seen the kallis dismissal but by its description it reads the same. maybe the way of been given out was wrong but in the end he was out. i just hope we do not get indian supporters given us the use of the referral not been correct. but as the bcci say they can accept an umpire given the wrong decision unlike modern technology which in this case that was proved correct

Posted by ArmChairUmpire on (February 15, 2013, 19:50 GMT)

Umpires sometimes make mistakes. Umpires + DRS make less mistakes. Nothing is likely to be 100% foolproof. Cricket is a games of gentlemen and gentle-ladies. Some decisions will go for you and some against. Time to accept it, Play the best you can and Move on.

Posted by tests_the_best on (February 15, 2013, 19:45 GMT)

@pipsonian, "I am glad Pakistani players are not the whiners...Learn South Africans, Indians and Australians." In the recent Ind-Eng series, Cook was given not out at a crucial stage in the 2nd test and he went on to make a century. That decision potentially robbed Ind of the match and the series as well. But despite that, Indians didn't whine about it knowing that some decisions go for and some go against them. You might want to check your facts before making such statements.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:42 GMT)

I dont get it. So the ump thought it was a catch but it wasnt. Its was an lbw. So an out is an out. Why was it not out?

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:41 GMT)

Kallis need to learn manners from Younis Khan, rather than doing bad things over umpire decision.

Posted by Wexfordwonder on (February 15, 2013, 19:41 GMT)

Fair enough and an understandable mistake. @ahsenkhan, not sure what you mean that it is fair that he is out as he was not out in all fairness. If the ump had given him not out lbw, the review would have held him as not out. @Special analyser, yes the appeal covers all form of out, but the umpire only rules on one form of out. I am not sure whether we now have to ascertain from the ump what he thought about the bat/pad and also about the LBW. Seems silly. In the end the decision was fair enough and I don't think we can complain too much as the decision would have been tight anyway, just something for the icc to clarify.

Posted by xylo on (February 15, 2013, 19:39 GMT)

Irrespective of the rules on when the mode of dismissal can vary, isn't the purpose of DRS to eliminate bad decisions? So, if a batsman is out in a different mode than that claimed, why do we need ifs and buts to give him out?

Posted by Surajdon9 on (February 15, 2013, 19:39 GMT)

That's out no doubt about that that was out...

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:38 GMT)

I understand why Kallis should not have been given out, but it took me, an avid cricket fan, ages to get my head round it! It was only until the commentators went through it on sky sports that I full understood what was going on. No wonder the game of cricket does not appeal to many nations outside the full members, the rules are too complex! ICC needs to 'dumb' down the rules in my opinion if they want the game to appeal beyond us already established fans!

Posted by Someguy on (February 15, 2013, 19:38 GMT)

@Shoobhit - same thing happened to Kasprowicz (I think it was him anyway) in the '05 Ashes series when Australia was only 1 run behind. Probably cost Aus the series. A win there would have reversed the results... assuming the results from the following matches would have remained the same, you could argue that the reversal of that result could have changed the feelings in the teams and changed the results of the following matches.

As far as the Kallis LBW, the way I read the rules (as stated in this article) is not that it shouldn't be out because it's umpires decision and he was not originally given out LBW, but that the on field umpire should now make the call on the LBW.

The fact that he thought the batsman got an edge doesn't mean he wouldn't have given it out if he thought the batsman had missed, so the question should have gone back to the onfield umpire " there was no edge, what do you think on the LBW?"

Posted by kami_alvi on (February 15, 2013, 19:35 GMT)

@vrn5 That younis dismissal was also due to hotspot and it wasn't adjudged by the on field umpire!

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:35 GMT)

I don't believe this apology is warranted. An appeal covers all forms of dismissal. The umpire did not rule Kallis LBW because he thought Kallis had nicked it (shown by the fact that he gave him out caught). However, this does not necessarily mean that the umpire did not think that the ball was going on the hit the stumps.

I would like to think in the conversation between Bowden and Davis, Bowden told Davis that Kallis had not hit it however it is a very close call on LBW (it is your call), and Davis knowingly gave him LBW thinking the ball would hit the stumps.

The conversation probably did not occur that way, however Davis was likely distracted by the bat pad appeal and didn't consider the LBW, so in that case "Umpire's verdict" is still not a leg to stand on and the decision should rest with the 3rd umpire.

In either case the right decision was made as Bowden thought it was LBW and Davis was either distracted by the bat-pad to rule on LBW or he agreed with Bowden.

Kallis out LBW

Posted by Sanatana on (February 15, 2013, 19:33 GMT)

When Pakistan had numerous wrong decisions against them in the first test - each time they accepted the decision with proper behaviour and instead made their complaints through official channels. Whereas today Kallis did not accept the decision initially. Kudos to Pakistani players for being respectful to officals in spite of being hard done by.

Posted by haq33 on (February 15, 2013, 19:31 GMT)

This is silly. Yes it is out according to the above however, let's assume kallis was given out and sa reviewed it. Then, the out would have been UPHELD due to the onfield ump decision, EVEN though the onfield ump WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERING lbw. How can an onfield ump decision be upheld if he is not considering that mode of dismissal in the first place. I consider this a loophole and the ICC is at fault. How dare they call this incorrect when the whole law is farcical.

Posted by philvic on (February 15, 2013, 19:30 GMT)

DRS covers all types of dismissal but should be applied according to onfield umpires original decison. So in this case, on field umpire said not LBW, technology was inconclusive (ie umpires call) so correct decision is not out.

On the other hand, if he had stepped forward and stroked it through the covers for 4 there would not have been any chance of being given out incorrectly.

Posted by Sanatana on (February 15, 2013, 19:28 GMT)

A couple of points to consider: 1) Shouldn't the rule for such situations be that the third umpire ask the on-field umpire that given there was no nick, does the on-field umpire feel that this was lbw instead? If on-field umpire says yes, then the lbw decision should stand as the use of technology should only be to overrule the umpire if there is clear evidence of contrary and batsman is out. If on-field umpire says no, then not out due to 'umpires call'. 2) Why did ICC make a statement today but not make any statements when Pakistan had up to 4 wrong decisions made against it in the previous test when Steve Davis was third umpire? Steve Davis actually overruled on-field umpire decision in the absence of clear and definitive evidence from DRS. Pakistan suffered from more than 1 decision in the first test where rules were mis-applied and no word from ICC, but S.Africa get 1 decision where rule was not applied correctly and ICC apologize immediately.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:25 GMT)

Completely agree with Raja Ahmad Ali's comments.. this is hypocrisy... and BCCI is still not right in asking to make DRS accurate.. nothing is accurate. If you see Smith and Amla was given not out but just because of DRS, they were given out suggesting the importance and correct intelligent use of DRS which indian captains have failed to use.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:25 GMT)

Kallis and all other who are saying he is not out, it was for catch. Then younis khan review was for lbw, it was not for catch. Where were you guys when lots of bad decisions were made by umpires against PAK. Come on guys i don't know whole why this whole world is against Pakistan including ICC. Every sensible person can understand my word, if you are watching both Pak vs SA tests. India is right on DRS, we Paki support India, it seems me that indians are more knowledgeable in technology then others. I myself is a software Engineer and i know technology better than you.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:22 GMT)

I think ICC should concentrate on awful field Umpiring standards.

There umpire was proven wrong 3 times by Ajmal.

BTW I use to respect SA, but they are as whiney as Indians. Like Kallis was going to win the match for them. 2 runs for 19 balls and was hit plum in front. The only thing saved him was the hawk eye showing a little deviation.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:19 GMT)

Don't forget the Younus Khan Incident.

Posted by vrn59 on (February 15, 2013, 19:19 GMT)

"Philander to Younis Khan, OUT, Appeal for an lbw and he's been given not out and Smith's reviewing it, pitched on a good length on middle and off and was coming in with the angle, Hot Spot detects a thin inside edge to the pads, the ball lobbed towards the keeper, the ball carries to AB and it looks like the lbw will be cancelled and it is - Younis is out caught behind." This is Raja Ahmad Ali's comment. A lot of Pakistan supporters claim that Younis' dismissal was unfair. It was not: he was out caught behind, as shown by the camera. Kallis was given out based on an umpire's call decision, which was not out for lbws. The ICC has admitted this is a mistake. Younis' dismissal was legitimate.

Posted by pipsonian on (February 15, 2013, 19:19 GMT)

ICC is a bunch of hypocrites. Kalis is a great batsman but he needs to show some sportsmans spirit just like Younis khan in the first innings. SAfrricans are just sissies, crying out at the drop of a hat. Now they are down against Pakistan and if, and a big if Pakistan ends up winning the game it will be all blamed on the umpires. I am glad Pakistani players are not the whiners, although they had every right to be after the first test match and after Younis Khan dismissals but they stood tall and that makes us Pakistanis so proud that in the face of adversity we are able to hold ourselves together. Learn South Africans, Indians and Australians.

Posted by AK47_pk on (February 15, 2013, 19:16 GMT)

So yunis was given out when he was not out. Well both team got one d3cesion so get on with the game rather then making excuses for a lost game.

Posted by irfi4040 on (February 15, 2013, 19:13 GMT)

well may i ask where was ICC when 4-5 wrong decisions through hot spot went against paki team during 1st test match? why such confession right now. and what about the dismissal of younis khan who was given out under the same circimstances? Its time for ICC to simplify the DRS rather than complicate it leaving a lot of controversies. Anyway the most disturbing thing was to see kallis arguing with umpire and not ready to leave the pitch after given out. where is the spirit of the game? did ICC took notice of it. its a shame to witness kallis behave in such manner.

Posted by paki_201 on (February 15, 2013, 19:13 GMT)

same thing happened in the first test whent the bastman was reviewed for a lbw shout but was later given out for catch behind

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:12 GMT)

What happened with the younis dismissal then. Wasn't they appealing for LBW and then they realize there was a nick in the hot spot.......Double standards......upto you to decide...........?

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:11 GMT)

Younis Khan was rightly given out, because he was originally given not out for an lbw appeal, SA reviewed the decision by the umpire still thinking it was out lbw. But replays and HOTSPOT showed he had edged the ball and AB caught it. Hence, he was rightly given out as per law Point 3.3 (f) in the playing conditions.

However, Kallis should have been given not out, as umpires call should have been assumed to be NOT OUT, and that way the ball was just clipping leg stump, hence, he should have been given not out.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:09 GMT)

From an India point of view: Why is no one talking about Younis's dismissal in the first innings of this test...he was also referred for LBW and was given caught out by third umpire! SA did not had any problems (read moral issues) whatsoever in claiming his wicket.

Posted by luvcricket_new_gen on (February 15, 2013, 19:08 GMT)

Kudos BCCI, no head aches of technology and law. Keep it simple - If the person standing with uniform in the middle gives out, leave the field. He is paid to make decisions and the world knows quite a few awesome umpires who held the game. So, try to improve umpiring standards rather than investing in technology and complicate matters that take too much time off the real action out in the middle. I stand with you.

Posted by S-Baba on (February 15, 2013, 19:07 GMT)

The up given article is well explanation but considering only Kallis is not good, as Younus Khan was also dismissed in same way...

So please review both cases in such a way that both Younus and Kallis will be satisfied and the cricket lovers as well... thank you.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:05 GMT)

Everybody is making mistakes, come on. Now umpire said it hit the bat, but actually it did not, he was not initially given out LBW because umpire thought that he nicked it but umpire did not think that it is missing leg. So now the second point, if according to laws of cricket that the LBW decision should have taken initially not out. So logically, if decision was initially taken not out then how on earth Kallis would have referred it to third umpire. Actually the law should be different in case of LBW in a way that if on field umpire thinks that the batsman nicked it thats why he has given batsman not out. In this case the batsman should be given out by third umpire even howkeye shows 1% of ball touching the leg or off stump. In case Umpire thinks that batsman is not out because it is missing off or leg stump then the rule should remain same as it is now. I think ICC would consider my comment and will think about it as both the cases are different.

Posted by Deep_Biswas on (February 15, 2013, 19:02 GMT)

BCCI was right. First improve the technology and the rules when and how the technology should come into play, then we (Indians) will be there to welcome DRS.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 19:02 GMT)

Philander to Younis Khan, OUT, Appeal for an lbw and he's been given not out and Smith's reviewing it, pitched on a good length on middle and off and was coming in with the angle, Hot Spot detects a thin inside edge to the pads, the ball lobbed towards the keeper, the ball carries to AB and it looks like the lbw will be cancelled and it is - Younis is out caught behind

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 18:58 GMT)

And no errors admitted on the ridiculously faulty Hot Spot decisions against Pakistan in the 1st Test? No limit to ICC's hypocrisy!

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 18:55 GMT)

then what about younis khan dismissal?......

Posted by Shoobhit on (February 15, 2013, 18:53 GMT)

Why does it happen to Kallis. Remember Rod Tucker's horrendous decision giving Kallis out even when his hand was off the handle when ball hit it, during the recent down under.

Posted by ahsenkhan on (February 15, 2013, 18:52 GMT)

Weird . At the end of the day Kallis was out and that makes the whole thing fair. may be I am saying it because I am a Pakistani support but still Kallis should not be arguing coz he knew he was out anyways.

Posted by Jay.Raj on (February 15, 2013, 18:51 GMT)

An interesting situation and I do believe that this is a honest error.

Posted by Special_Analyser on (February 15, 2013, 18:51 GMT)

I really dont understand all the fuss about Kallis dissmissal. Put aside the laws that clearly says "Law 27.4 says that the appeal covers ALL manners of out."

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 18:49 GMT)

What happen when in the first test a lot of wrong decsions went south african way. their was not a confusion on DRs it should be taken out till we get a better alternative.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2013, 18:49 GMT)

where was the icc yesterday.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email 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