England may have had reason to feel aggrieved during the second session of the first day’s play of their first Test against South Africa, when an appeal for a catch by Ben Stokes against Quinton de Kock was struck down on umpire review.
The contentious incident took place on the fifth ball of the 43rd over, bowled by Joe Root to de Kock, who was unbeaten on 35 off 30 balls. De Kock edged an off-break low to Stokes at slip where the all-rounder clung on, though he was at first unsure if the ball had carried or bounced just before. He didn’t celebrate, instead making a square with his hands to suggest the umpires to send the catch upstairs.
Stokes wasn’t sure – are you?
De Kock is given ‘not out’ on 35 – SA 142-5.
? Watch #SAvENG live: https://t.co/7Ux2cstY40
? Follow our live blog: https://t.co/SGS4pW16zH pic.twitter.com/6dzmMU0GZ8— Sky Sports Cricket (@SkyCricket) December 26, 2019
“Oh has it carried? Don’t think so,” said commentator Pommie Mbangwa on the host broadcaster’s feed. “They’ll go upstairs, soft signal says not out. It just looked like it was a touch short.”
The TV umpire Kumar Dharmasena agreed with Mbangwa’s assessment as a zoomed-in replay appeared to show the ball bouncing just in front of Stokes, though the England team saw it differently. Root high-fived Stokes as the replay was shown, and both looked shocked when the not out decision was upheld.
[breakout id=”0″][/breakout]
Another angle, from behind Stokes and seemingly not considered by the Dharmasena, muddied the waters further.
“Another look this time from behind,” said Mbangwa. “Ooh, I tell you what you want to do with that replay is look at his left hand and what happens with those fingers. Why I point that out is, does it bounce in the hands? Does it bounce on the fingers?”
[caption id=”attachment_132661″ align=”alignnone” width=”800″]
Quinton de Kock looked in good touch, but should he have been given out caught by Ben Stokes?[/caption]
While it was perhaps a mistake in the process not to look at every angle before making a decision, Ackermann’s fellow commentator Michael Atherton felt that, without conclusive evidence, Dharmasena was right to uphold the onfield soft signal of ‘not out’.
“The key thing, as is often the case with these catches is the soft signal,” he said. “The soft signal is your starting point. The soft signal was not out so there was nothing there for the third umpire to suggest that that should have been out.”
[breakout id=”1″][/breakout]
However, Atherton pointed out that, as well as their view on the legality of a catch, umpires are often influenced by the strength of an appeal when deciding on a soft signal. With Stokes unsure, the umpires took his lead and gave a soft signal of not out. Should he have celebrated more keenly when he caught it, despite being unsure?
[breakout id=”2″][/breakout]
“The question would have been if it would have been a more dramatic reaction from Stokes, what would the soft signal have been then?” asked Atherton. “Had Stokes celebrated when he caught that it might have been encouraged the onfield umpire to say the soft signal was out, rather than not out. And then the third umpire would have had to give it out I think.”
