The limits of video technology - a cricketing footnote

Charles le Roi reflects on one of the controversial moments in the recent South Africa-England Test series...

Driving back from Cape Point to Cape Town with the cricket commentary on R2000 for company was a wonderful way to take in the action on the first day of the fourth and final Test between England and South Africa. While the striking vista over False Bay and the dramatic twists and turns round Chapman’s Peak demanded attention, it was increasingly difficult to ignore the drama unfolding in Johannesburg.

The English team had displayed admirable resolve on this tour but they were inarguably riding their luck. As I pulled into Cape Town – long before the far more controversial and hotly debated debacle of the Graeme Smith not-out – that luck appeared to be deserting them.

Although England’s subsequent lame surrender in the second innings suggested there was only one possible outcome to the Test, Morne Morkel’s dismissal of Alastair Cook was arguably the key moment of the match. With England’s openers playing as though they felt they had a duty to be polite to their hosts, and with Kevin Pietersen batting throughout as though offering apology for his ‘defection’, the fourth wicket was a crucial moment in establishing whether England might recover from their disastrous start or limp to the sort of total eventually posted. Enter match referee Daryl Harper, cricket’s most disputed arbiter of justice.

While happy to take the wicket, the South African radio commentary team was practically unanimous in its verdict that it was a no-ball and therefore should not have stood. Although they hoped, more than believed, that millimetres of Morkel’s heel may have been behind the line before sliding forward, their view was that had Harper not awarded the wicket, South Africa would have had few, if any, complaints.

Interestingly, it was suggested that over the course of even a few overs the white line demarcating the crease becomes somewhat smudged and therefore thickens slightly, meaning that those (from a South African perspective) precious millimetres may not have been there first ball of the morning session. This raises the intriguing possibility that there was, in this instance, perhaps no real right or wrong decision. It provides further proof that video evidence cannot always be conclusive. It asks what purpose does it serve then?

Comments

[The Worm]

The referrals system seemed to have been going pretty well until this final test but i suppose it depends on who is executing it, and it might have been bigger news had the batting not been so lame and SA not deserved a bit of fortune- I made some comments about the system after the third test and i guess you're right, its ultimately flawed because by going to the tv you assume there has to be a right answer, but sometimes its too hard to see and sometimes the slowed down tv/ hawkeye makes a decision that the naked eye never would.