South Africa take lead despite rain and (maybe) umpires

South Africa 2/215 (63.2 ov, G Smith 105, H Amla 73*) lead England 180 by 35 runs with 8 first innings wickets in hand: T4 D3 at Johannesburg.

Graeme Smith, who survived a confident appeal for a catch behind the wicket at 15, and Hashim Amla took South Africa to a narrow lead on another rain shortened day. If we accept the umpires' decision (which England don't as they've lodged an appealagainst it) Smith's 105/187b (16x4) was a masterly innings. Amla has looked good too for his 73*/132b (8x4) and he's still there.

More rain is forecast, though I expect for the next few hours we'll hear more about the not out call than any other aspect of the match.

Scorecard

England hold on once again for draw : T3 D5

South Africa 293 and 7/447d drew with England 273 and 9/296 (141 ov, I Bell 78, A Cook 55): T3 D5 at Cape Town

I turned in at tea time (ie nudging midnight in these parts) when Paul Collingwood 39* and Ian Bell 68* looked well set and, despite some hostile South African bowling from Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel, England 5/230 looked to be heading for a comfortable draw.

Draw it was but comfortable it wasn't. I woke to watch the highlights and to discover that the South Africans had made a final effort which had almost succeeded. For the second time in three Tests England, in the person of Graham Onions, held on for a draw, and the home side were one good (or lucky) ball away from victory. Not that they didn't bowl many good balls, just not one that was good enough. In the last over Morne Morkel appeared to have Onions caught behind but replays showed that it brushed his sleeve not his bat (and vindicated the decision of the recently much maligned umpire Harper)

A 1-0 series lead is not a fair reflection of the merits of the two sides but that's the way Test cricket works. Australia couldn't force a win at Cardiff in T1 of last year's Ashes, and their failure seemed, just as the get out of jail draw at Centurion in T1 did, to inspire England to regroup and win the next Test.

There's a few days before the last Test begins and it will be very interesting to see if and how the South Africans can restore their self-belief. The team that they fielded at Newlands had no major weaknesses, though there will be some pondering about the value of Ashwell Prince and Paul Harris. England are not infallible either, as the large South African second innings showed, and Kevin Pietersen is overdue for a mid-range let alone a big score.


Scorecard

Only 21 balls but still controversy

Australia 520/7d & 150 defeatedWest Indies 312 & 323 (94.3 ov) by 35 runs: T3 D5 at Perth. Australia win series 2-0.

21 balls and a lengthy though fruitless review of the umpire's decision was all it took to decide the match this morning. The result was not unexpected though the slender margin was, at least after the first two days.

Had video umpire Asad Rauf interpreted the guidelines anywhere near as liberally as he did in Adelaide with Shiv Chanderpaul he might have overruled Billy Bowden's decision that Kemar Roach nicked Doug Bollinger to the keeper. Certainly the replays I saw on TV were inconclusive. The

I've been flooded by emails saying that Roach should not have been given out because replays didn't show an edge. I don't think that's how it works. Bowden gave him out on the field and since replays did not prove that he didn't nick it, the on-field decision should stay. The irony is that, if Bowden had given him not out, and the Australians had asked for a review, Roach might well have been given not out after the review because replays didn't prove that he was out. It's complicated, this UDRS. I couldn't tell whether he nicked it or not. Hot Spot didn't show much, but it often doesn't pick up faint edges. This debate will rage on and on ...

They are showing Snicko now and there's a faint indication of an edge. Ever so faint, it could have been an edge, it could have been something else. I guess only Roach will really know.

The Cricinfo commentator (access via summary scorecard) agreed with me yet thought that the decision should stay:

I've been flooded by emails saying that Roach should not have been given out because replays didn't show an edge. I don't think that's how it works. Bowden gave him out on the field and since replays did not prove that he didn't nick it, the on-field decision should stay. The irony is that, if Bowden had given him not out, and the Australians had asked for a review, Roach might well have been given not out after the review because replays didn't prove that he was out. It's complicated, this UDRS. I couldn't tell whether he nicked it or not. Hot Spot didn't show much, but it often doesn't pick up faint edges. This debate will rage on and on ...

They are showing Snicko now and there's a faint indication of an edge. Ever so faint, it could have been an edge, it could have been something else. I guess only Roach will really know.

Did Roach know? He called for the review at least as, if not more, quickly than I can recall any player doing so in the brief time the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) system has been in place. If anything his rapid response suggests that he didn't believe that he'd hit the ball. In any case the video umpire should have looked at the objective evidence before his eyes. If it was inconclusive then IMO Roach should have been given the benefit of the doubt, a core principle of umpiring decision making.

This aside Australia were the better side in this match, though less emphatically than they would have expected after the first two days. A 2-0 series victory doesn't accurately reflect the differences between the teams, particularly the improvement which the West Indies made in the last two matches. Australia might claim that they were unlucky with injuries, yet this is a feeble excuse for their underperformance when many commentators predicted three emphatic victories.


Scorecard

More on referrals

The Fox Sports website has a brace of good posts about referrals.

The first is a guide All you need to know about referrals

Excerpt:

Interpretation of Laws

When using technology to determine where the ball pitched (as per Law 36.1(b)), the TV umpire should refer to the “point” (or centre) of the ball. Therefore if at least 50 per cent of the ball pitches outside the line of leg stump, then no lbw dismissal is possible.

When using technology to determine the point of impact (as per Law 36.1 (d)), if ANY part of the ball is intercepted between wicket and wicket, then the point of impact is deemed to have been between wicket and wicket.

When using a replay to determine the moment at which the wicket has been put down (as per Law 28.1), the TV umpire should deem this to be the first frame in which one of the bails is shown (or can be deduced) to have lost ALL contact with the top of the stumps.

It is daft to use the "point" (centre) of the ball to determine where the ball pitches. If the pad is not involved the ball doesn't need to hit the stumps full on: as long as it clips one enough to dislodge a bail the batter will be out.

The second Cricket referrals: the great debate continues... includes a link to a video of the Jacques Kallis lbw which was overruled (or whatever the official term is) by the TV umpire. Worth a look if you've not seen it before.

Pause, break, hiatus, lull, siesta...

These are a few words which have been, or could be used to describe the weeks since the mini-series with Sri Lanka finished.

Years ago (like when Richie Benaud was captain) Australian cricket seasons were divided into those with touring teams and those without. In the former the touring side (note singular) progressed around the country playing matches (which were never called "warm up" matches) against state teams before the test series began, usually in late November/early December. If no overseas team toured the first class season comprised the home and away Sheffield Shield four day series between five states, with an occasional game involving Tasmania. This may explain why interstate cricket had a stronger following then. (How many contemporary South Australians could name more two or three Redbacks?)

Nowadays the emphasis is on international cricket in its three forms by which I mean test, 50 overs and Twenty20, not matches between the top tier of nations and those involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Although two tests are currently under way in the sub-continent the only Australian involvement on the field is via the umpires, whose job should be, and generally is to maintain a low media profile (though umpire Harper has incurred the displeasure of The Times cricket correspondent ).

It's hard to believe that at this time last year the Ashes series was well under way. That of course was shoehorned into a short period, and for the Australians at least, unlike this season with its crop of crocks was relatively injury free.

Anyway a kind of normality will soon be restored with the Australia- NZ Twenty20 game in Perth, followed by the Chappell-Hadlee series, which begins in Adelaide on Friday (where a hot high 30s day is forecast). So Australian reporters and bloggers will have something tangible to write about instead of having to speculate about whether Muttiah Muraliduran deserves to hold his record (I think he does, but may return to this another time) or if Australia should choose a spinner for the Boxing Day test (I think it's a good idea, but am not sure if there's anyone who can fit the bill).

PS Trivia task for the underoccupied: select a team from those who've missed a game or more this season due to injury.

The umpire speaks back

Today's Offsiders included a segment about cricket umpire Simon Taufel, who was recently voted the top official at the Australian sporting awards, even though he's unable to officiate in tests involving Australia (ODIs except for World Cup finals are OK).

The interview with Barry Cassidy (not Casidy as the website says) is worth watching (or reading when the transcript is posted), not least because Taufel comes across as assured, articulate and diplomatic. John Harms, one of the panel, said that he has a future in politics: a backhanded compliment, yet not one that could be paid to many current players in many sports.

I've previously said that Australian cricket followers should see more of umpire Taufel in tests. He will officiate at the World Cup but, as he confirmed today, not in the final if Australia is playing, which is a pity.

Simon Taufel's 100th ODI prompts thoughts on umpiring

A good Cricket Australia media release pays tribute to Australian umpire Simon Taufel who has just umpired his 100th ODI.

Simon, who because of ICC policies never officiates in Tests featuring Australia , is at 35 the youngest umpire to reach this milestone. Given the poor standard of Test umpiring we've seen here in recent years perhaps it's time to review the situation, and allow quality umpires like Simon to stand in Tests as well as ODIs.

I also can't see why three umpires can't rotate during a Test with, say, each standing on the field for two sessions of a day's play (the one not thus engaged would as now serve as the TV umpire). Not more than one umpire from each opponent should be on the match panel.

After seeing so many incorrect or doubtful decisions this year I also think that TV replays should be used to judge more types of dismissal. I know that this may increase delays (which the TV companies would appreciate as it allows more commercial breaks) but the third umpire should be instructed to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt if a decision is not clear from the first replay.

Enough for that for now. Congratulations, Simon. I hope (but don't really expect) to see you umpiring Tests involving Australia soon.

Billy won't be a hero (or a minor media celebrity)

Unlike so many others, I've refrained from commenting upon the sacking of Darrell Hair from the elite panel of umpires, a matter of which we may not have heard the last: see here for a recent (13 November) report.

Today's Australian publishes a letter from Tom Veivers ,a former Test cricketer (not, as he mistakenly states, umpire) , who criticises both Hair and Cricket Australia:

During my own Test umpiring [sic] career the best umpires were invariably those who were the least noticed.

There are many who see Hair falling into the category of those umpires who seem to believe that spectators come to matches to see them umpire. Why does Cricket Australia want to continue the controversy by appointing him to officiate in our domestic cricket?

I've sent this to the Australian:

I'm a cricket spectator who agrees with Tom Veivers that the best umpires are those who are the "least noticed". I've never attended a game to see Darrell Hair (or anyone else) umpire, so don't see why, in the absence of more compelling evidence about his alleged lack of competence, that he shouldn't umpire Australian domestic first class games. I would also like to know why, if being "least noticed" is a criterion for selection of test match umpires, Billy Bowden has been appointed to the first Ashes Test.

I'm obviously not the only person who has a similar concern, as reports of his appointment elsewhere in the media, eg here , suggest. The Age report summarises the issues succinctly :

His flamboyant signalling , often unguarded media comments and cultivation of personal publicity have made him a minor media celebrity.He was highly rated by players at the start of his international career, but last year 73 per cent of Australia's 25 contracted players rated Bowden the second-worst umpire in world cricket.

I'll reserve my judgment, and give the benefit of the doubt to a man who has claimed "God - he is my third umpire in a way".

To give him his due, Mr Bowden has occasionally admitted to occasional fallibility , It's probably just as well that India aren't playing for the Ashes (they may be working on it but have a little way to go) otherwise he might come in for even more criticism like this.