Ken Borland

The incident on the opening day of the third Test between the Proteas and Australia where South Africa were convinced they had caught Marnus Labuschagne in the slips, only for the batsman to slip from the net, thankfully has not had a major bearing on the game, but it did highlight an area of cricket – and many other sports – where the authorities need to consider the role of host broadcasters.

Labuschagne enjoyed a huge slice of luck when he was on 70 and he edged left-armer Marco Jansen low to first slip, where Simon Harmer seemed to have scooped up a fine catch.

Neither Labuschagne nor the umpires were 100% convinced though, with third umpire Richard Kettleborough being called into play, the soft signal being out. Having watched numerous replays, the Englishman felt the ball had touched the ground, but a conclusive replay, zoomed in from the front, was strangely absent.

Labuschagne survived, and five minutes later, the crucial replay suddenly emerged and showed that Harmer did get his fingers under the ball. Fortunately, the South African-born batsman could only add nine more runs before the heroic Anrich Nortje got him caught behind.

The incident raised suspicions about the role of host broadcasters in the officiating of the game, and it later emerged that the third umpire only had access to the world feed camera shots and the front-on slow-mo replay was exclusively a Seven Network shot. But how that footage then appeared on the SuperSport feed was not explained.

One must credit Cricket Australia for their rapid response to the incident, with CEO Nick Hockley saying they will conduct a review on whether the third umpire should have access to footage from both broadcast rights holders.

“The broadcasting of cricket is probably the most complicated of any of the major sports,” Hockley said. “We have a huge number of cameras. It was really, really fine margins. The match referees and umpires are making the best calls they can with the information they have available.”

Indeed, Kettleborough and the onfield umpires, Chris Gaffaney and Paul Reiffel, should not be blamed for this controversy. It was an exceptionally tough decision for Kettleborough to make based on the incomplete picture he was given.

The International Cricket Council has been pretty good at removing the frustration of clearly wrong decisions from the game, and I would say the DRS is a roaring success. They will surely now be contemplating the perceptions of bias among host broadcasters.

As South Africans, we need to acknowledge the anger Australians felt when SuperSport targeted their cameras on them in 2018/19, while who can forget Indian captain Virat Kohli’s furious outburst (strangely unpunished) into the stump mics a year ago at Newlands.

And this is not just a cricket problem. Rugby has been particularly under the spotlight, with South African fans, already feeling there is a vendetta against them, infuriated by the number of times there has been incomplete footage of a TV referral that seemed to be going the way of their team. Like what happened with France’s matchwinning try against the Springboks a couple of months ago.

It’s a bit like an arms race, with broadcasters doing nefarious things on a tit-for-tat basis because they feel ‘their’ team were on the receiving end when they went overseas. But moulding the outcome of key decisions is clearly unsporting and we don’t want the match officials to become merely ornamental in nature.

If the current trend continues, the legitimacy of the sport we watch could end up having a wound that a mere plaster won’t fix.

Would an association of sports broadcasters which has a clear code of conduct be the answer? Any broadcaster who has been found to engage in favouritism could be stripped of their membership and not allowed to bid for TV rights.

There are bound to be all sorts of contractual, legal and practical obstacles to overcome, but would neutral executive producers/directors be the answer?

Both the ICC and WorldRugby managed to phase in neutral officials a long time back, which seemed unlikely to be possible at one stage, so where there is a will (and there needs to be one!) there is a way.

The Proteas’ resident ginger, Heinrich Klaasen, deeply annoyed the English team, especially his fellow red-haired opponents, with his gamesmanship in the second ODI at Old Trafford on Friday night, but the 30-year-old batsman afterwards brushed off the incident as “fun and games on the field”.

South Africa had plummeted to 39 for five after 10 of their 29 overs when Klaasen stopped play to complain about his vision of the ball being disturbed by white sheeting at the bottom of the black sightscreen. Initially the umpires battled to understand what he was complaining about, with England getting more and more frantic for play to resume as the drizzle that was falling was only getting heavier.

By this stage, the Proteas were already badly behind in the contest, needing 164 runs in 19 overs with the last recognised pair of batsmen together at the crease. Their best hope seemed to be for the match to be rained off before they had faced 20 overs, in which case there would be no result.

It took a few minutes for the penny to drop that the ground staff had shifted the boundary boards aside in order to allow them to bring the covers on quickly if necessary, thereby exposing the white sheeting which Klaasen alleged made the white ball difficult to see.

The wicketkeeper/batsman afterwards admitted that he actually had no problems sighting the ball but he was just trying to delay play. England were boiling over with frustration and Klaasen sparked something of a Ginger War as Jonny Bairstow fumed at the batsman and the umpires, and captain Jos Buttler, who has a hint of reddish-brown hair himself, stomped around.

“It was zero percent about the ball disappearing,” Klaasen admitted. “It was starting to rain harder and I was just trying to delay matters. I hoped the umpires would take us off the field before the 20 overs, but unfortunately they didn’t.

“It was just some old-school tricks. The England boys didn’t like it and I knew the abuse would come. I was just trying to upset their game a bit, I thought it couldn’t do us any harm.

“It frustrated a lot of them, but we didn’t come off in the end. What they said to me didn’t bother me at all, it was just fun and games on the field, and off the field hopefully we can still have a beer after the next game. It’s easy for me to keep that sort of thing on the field,” Klaasen said.

England had the last laugh though as South Africa were skittled for a dismal 83 all out and left to mourn a massive 118-run defeat, with paceman David Willey saying “I’m thinking Mother Cricket came around”.

–

Given the financial crisis at Auckland Park, it is easy to attack the SABC for their coverage of cricket, but an incident during the third Test between the Proteas and Pakistan at the Wanderers got me thinking about the influence of SuperSport in South African cricket.

I have an early disclaimer to make – I used to work, on contract, at the broadcaster and I do believe South African sport would be much worse off were it not for the millions of rands SuperSport pumps into the various codes through broadcast rights.

But there is also an unseemly, monopolistic and dictatorial element to this relationship.

I experienced it first-hand when I happened to call Tony Greig a “loudmouth commentator” in an opinion piece I wrote for their website. The instruction came from on high from Imtiaz Patel, now the executive chairman of MultiChoice and apparently still ruling with an iron fist from Dubai, and I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to withdraw the article and send Greig a written apology.

I was tempted to use the famous apology former English fast bowler Andy Caddick once received from a West Indian journalist, who described him in his report as being “the big-eared Caddick”. The cricketer stormed into the media centre, found the journalist and demanded that an apology be printed in the next edition.

The apology was indeed there – “I am sorry that Andy Caddick has big ears”.

Last week’s incident also involved a commentator, but one that generally chooses his words with a lot more purpose than Greig did – Mark Nicholas.

The Englishman said on air on the first day that their lunchtime chat, which is sadly not easily accessed by those at the ground, on the second day would be with three South African legends of the past – Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards and Mike Procter.

Many viewers waited with huge anticipation for the interview – and we must remember that there is massive overseas interest in those three greats – but then there was nothing. The whole idea was quietly canned and never happened. SuperSport should have at least informed the public as to why what appeared to be a major snub had happened. Even Pollock, Richards and Procter were left in the dark.

Apparently, the interview was pulled due to one of those instructions from on high, seemingly because Cricket South Africa’s response to anything Richards has to say these days is akin to that of my wife when she discovers a Parktown Prawn in the house.

So instead of serving their viewers, and allowing cricket fans to enjoy a good chat with three of the greatest players ever, SuperSport preferred to score some cheap political points.

SuperSport have a terrible attitude when it comes to their responsibility as the most powerful media house in the country. They will avoid even the slightest hint of criticism aimed at the sports bodies that give them the broadcast rights, bending over backwards to fulfil every little wish of the administrators. Many of whom should be subjected to the harshest media scrutiny of all.

Cricket South Africa, who were captured themselves by the Guptas, have SuperSport captured although it is a more mutually beneficial relationship. But does it benefit the sport in the long term?

SuperSport have some very good broadcasters and journalists and they should be allowed more freedom to do their jobs. Certainly someone as experienced and sharp as Nicholas was highly unlikely to allow anything embarrassing to be said.

Instead, the embarrassment is all SuperSport’s now with their absurd banning of three absolute cricket greats, admired the world over.

https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-citizen-gauteng/20190119/282656098637360