Replay or not replay?

Inevitably, Kevin Pietersen’s contentious dismissal yesterday dominates the newspapers this morning.

Derek Pringle, in The Telegraph, spoke to Jeff Crowe, the match referee, who sided with Michael Vaughan and his comments yesterday that TV replays should be used more often.

"I think Kevin was a little confused at what went on there when the umpires conversed on whether they saw it as a fair catch," Crowe said. "They made their decision, there was probably a reaction from the crowd because of the television monitors around the ground and that might have caused Kevin to stop.

"I don't think it's a code violation unless there's a real gesture and an anger that is displayed - that's what we look at. Images are important more than anything.

"Obviously common sense is an important issue in these matters, but sticking to what's written is what the umpires look at first and foremost. Maybe we have to look at how it's written, that's pretty much what I'd be saying to the ICC. When there is this example we might need to look at it closely and see if we write it in a different way."

Over at The Times, Christopher Martin-Jenkins makes the point that TV evidence is not always so conclusive.

That this was deft teamwork is not in doubt. Whether the two umpires, conferring, should have given Pietersen out without consulting the television umpire is. ICC guidelines encourage the men in the middle to make their own minds up. The replay from the vantage point of Daryl Harper, the umpire, suggested that Silva had grounded the ball in his first attempt to catch it, but history proves that replays can fib. The reverse angle suggested the initial catch was a close thing, but legitimate.