South Africa v Sri Lanka, 3rd ODI, Bloemfontein, 17 January, 2012

Three changes to the squad: Kallis rested, Amla given time off for him and his wife to welcome the first mini-Amla, and Kleinveldt injured. In come Vernon Philander, Alviro Petersen and Colin Ingram.

Didn't think Vernon was an ODI player. Rather than Petersen it would have been a good opportunity for them to blood a youngster methinks.

49 balls, 100 minutes and 33 runs. Who is this impostor?

Billy Doctrove is the Bryce Lawrence of cricket. At least the latter had the excuse of having to take his decisions in real time...

I thought from the front end view how might be out. They haven't shown it again.

RED???? ANY THOUGHTS ON GRAEME CRAIG SMITH??????

taipan wrote:I thought from the front end view how might be out. They haven't shown it again.

On most of the shots he seemed to be in, and he should have been given the benefit of the doubt. While waiting we weren't even stressing about the decision, so were pretty surprised (as, I thought, were Duminy and the Lankans).

Du Plessis was unlucky too - no problem with the decision, but a nasty time for a muscle to go.

Pity about the rain. Whether they play again or not, D/L mucks up things, and this match promised a more exciting finish than the previous two.

Despite all the continued mouthings of commentators over the years, there is no such rule as benefit of the doubt for the batsman. Doubtless tomorrow we will see still photos that prove it one way or the other.

taipan wrote:there is no such rule as benefit of the doubt for the batsman

It may not be a rule, or more correctly law, but any decent umpire will always endeavour to give the benefit of any doubt to a batsman. He will still get that wrong occasionally.

lardbucket wrote:

taipan wrote:there is no such rule as benefit of the doubt for the batsman

It may not be a rule, or more correctly law, but any decent umpire will always endeavour to give the benefit of any doubt to a batsman. He will still get that wrong occasionally.

Rule /law. Semantics. My feeling when I saw it from the front was that he was in trouble.

I haven't seen the incident you're talking about at all, I was just saying that whether it (benefit of the doubt) is not a rule (or not a law) is irrelevant ... a decent umpire should always give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. If the umpire thinks the ball might not have been caught, or the runout or stumping effected without the ball in control, or the lbw shout not clearly hitting ... it should be given not out by any decent umpire. We should all accept that he will be wrong on occasions. UDRS offers an opportunity for some (but not all) of these mistakes to be rectified.

And i agree on all that as you know.

The side on shot was missing the crucial frame as usual. The front end shot showed the bat on the line with the balls off. The argument is about the side sot being inconclusive.

why is the side on shot 'always' missing the crucial frame?

Why can we (with the aid of superfast cameras) count revs per second on the spinners' deliveries as they make their way down the pitch, but simultaneously be unable, regularly, to see the relevant shot as a batsman runs his bat into and over the crease line?

lardbucket wrote:why is the side on shot 'always' missing the crucial frame?

Why can we (with the aid of superfast cameras) count revs per second on the spinners' deliveries as they make their way down the pitch, but simultaneously be unable, regularly, to see the relevant shot as a batsman runs his bat into and over the crease line?

It always happens for some reason.

End result: Proteas win by 4 runs, D/L, and has an unassailable 3-0 series lead. Francois du Plessis is MOM.