The fact is the third umpire must always give the benefit of the doubt to Kallis and he couldn't be absolutely sure. The ICC need release some more detailed guidline for the third umpires. Or maybe two third umpires who have to agree?
But there doesn't need to be any more guidelines, they know the rules, they aren't blurry (in cricket, they generally aren't) quite why the decision was made as it was, I have no idea*. It'll be interesting if they release any details (or have done and I've missed it).
*I did wonder if they kept trying to see if there was a white spot on the face of the bat as it passed it. But there wasn't.
AngryAngy said:
From the laws: "any part of a glove worn on the batsman?s hand holding the bat". Holding, not possibly touching the bat or brushing the other glove. Very clear. As soon as he releases the bottom hand, that hand shouldn't get him out caught.
Hmm, I'll have to check my Tom Smith's, as I'm not sure on this. I'm fairly sure that you can be out if the ball hits the armguard, if the armguard is touching the glove (including the elasticy bit that goes over the wrist). Likewise, if the other glove was off the bat, but was touching, I think he would have been out, but again, I'll have to check the book.
All mute though, as it wasn't. Odd decision.
----------
Some mettle from Bairstow today, and although Bell got out (and you could see how angry he was with himself for falling to an obvious plan) he has got us out of a situation that could have lead to us being out of the game.
Not sure I agree on Boycott's statement, at all. Bowling hasn't been great, but not that bad. They've finally picked the right attack, only taken until the series has gone...
+1 on Strauss going.