ICC Partially Clarifies Tucker's Decision Against Kallis

I asked the ICC whether Rod Tucker had any evidence available to him in his DRS enhanced footage which confirmed whether or not the ball caught Jacques Kallis's glove yesterday. The evidence seen on the broadcast, both by the viewers and probably also by the commentators was not, in my view conclusive as I wrote yesterday. The ICC's response and my question is as follows:

Q: Could you explain what Rod Tucker saw in his enhanced DRS broadcast that confirmed to him that Kallis touched the ball? Are TV Umpires now relying on noise to give people out?

ICC: There was both sound, hot spot on the glove, and deviation from a close up to confirm for Rod there was contact. Yes, sound is used as evidence as long as it marries up with point of impacting. 

I followed up by asking whether anything Umpire Tucker saw confirmed that the ball hit the glove before the glove left the handle of the bat. The ICC declined to add to their original statement.

The problem with Law 6(8) stands.