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.