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.
DRS specifications that are currently applicable are explicit on the following point (see 3.2(c) of Appendix 2 in this document:
Under no circumstances is any player permitted to query an umpire about any aspect of a decision before deciding on whether or not to request a Player ReviewLaw 27, which governs appeals, is applicable as written in the currently applicable Test Match playing conditions. Law 27(1) states:
Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made.Further, Law 27(4) states:
An appeal "How’s That?" covers all ways of being out.Coming back to the DRS specifications, the clause that appears to be considered to be of central importance is 3.3(f)
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.It is irrelevant that Pakistan appealed for a catch. It is only relevant that they appeal for dismissal. Since the players are prohibited from finding out the mode of dismissal under which they have been given out, the only time it could have been revealed that Umpire Davis gave a caught dismissal and not an LBW dismissal is during the consultation process.
The idea that a batsman could be out in multiple ways, and that a different mode of dismissal may have to be examined, is something that cricket encounters only with the advent of a review. In real time, the appeal is simply for dismissal, and the decision is also simply to uphold or deny such an appeal. With the advent of technology, this basic nature of the appeal is itself upended. Because now, there is time and evidence available for the consideration of multiple modes of dismissal.
So the Umpires, I would argue, were basically faithful to the Laws in ruling Kallis out. It is only under the DRS specifications that they were wrong. I say this because an "Out" decision on that delivery, had the appeal been an LBW appeal (which, under the Laws of Cricket is was, even if Pakistan have since clarified that they were appealing for a catch), was an eminently reasonable one.
This episode has revealed yet another unintended consequence of the introduction of DRS with the player review. Had there been no DRS available, Kallis would have had nothing to complain about. Given events, and given the way an appeal works, Umpire Davis could have been perfectly justified in following a line of reasoning that goes something like this - "I heard two noises. There was most likely an inside edge there. But if there wasn't, then that is already an adjacent LBW appeal, on balance, its reasonable to uphold Pakistan's appeal for dismissal against the batsman, since it is impossible that the batsman isn't out in one of two modes of dismissal - Caught and LBW".
Cricket is faced with a choice under DRS. Does it continue with the current definition of the appeal? Or does it move to a more precise definition which is not only plausible under a review regime, but is also necessary? Should Cricket require fielding teams to specify what they are appealing for? Can it avoid going to this system eventually?
I hope not.
I've never thought of Kallis as a player who displays poor sportsmanship, so it was a shame to see him not walking as soon as he was given out. Perhaps Law 27 isn't the only thing that won't survive the DRS, perhaps the near sacred respect for the umpire's decision that should be part of cricket will also be lost.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to conclude that Kallis displayed poor sportsmanship. There was very little clarity on what actually had occured. Kallis thought he had appealed a caught decision. Further, once we have the Player Review in place, it is legitimate for a player to question an umpire's decision, and once this is allowed, then it is hard to deny the player the right to have things clarified afterwards.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's a big issue with Law 27, and I'm not even convinced the "Playing Control Team" had it more right in their statement than in the original decision.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, Davis might have been ready to give Kallis out one way or the other in the first place. If that was the case, then correct application of the DRS process should result in an LBW dismissal. It's true that the specifications say that the process shall be conducted as if the original decision were not out, but that doesn't mean an "umpire's call" has to be not out.
It only means the tv umpire has to report the impact/trajectory as inconclusive (ignoring the 'down the pitch' clause that was rushed in during the WC in completely different terms). Davis would have no reason to change his original opinion on that particular point, whatever that was.
The fact that the original decision is not really relevant is slightly clouded by the fact that subclause 3.3(i) uses it to give one-sided instructions on when the evidence is to be considered inconclusive (the 'umpire's call'), even though it would be simpler to define inconclusive evidence in general. But in either case the effect should be the same, and the statement is wrong to say that the fact that a new mode of dismissal was being considered in the DRS process should have changed the outcome.