ACRONYMRODS

ICC, PCT, DRS, AHE, "an honest error":

ICC admit error in Kallis dismissal

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.

The ICC needs a table which lists its umpires' DRS controversies.

Comments

[Big Ramifications]

FTA: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.

Fark him. He was out.

And I don't get the "and Kallis would have been not out" bit anyway. Is it me, or it is badly written?

According to the piece:

1. Appeal for bat pad catch.
2. Gets referred to 3rd umpire.
3. 3rd umpire should have said "not out bat pad catch, but FYI out lbw.
4. This means it was back to being "an umpire's call" so therefore it would have been not out.

Eh? Why couldn't point 4 read:

4. This means it was back to being "an umpire's call" and the umpire quite correctly said "so he's out lbw... hmm... and it's my call... then I am going to give him OUT!"

[Big Ramifications]

FTA:...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.

No. He had ruled the appeal for bat pad catch out. He hadn't ruled "it" not out.

OK, I'm playing hair splitter mind reader to a badly written story. Either way the RULES should be constructed thus: If he's out he's out.

Not: If he's out but not out due to some wank technicality in what order he said she said then he's not out.

[Tony Tea]

Spot on Biggus. Kallis got out via a mistake, but would have been not out on a technicality. Tell it walking, Fatty Jack.