Ken Borland

A decidedly undistinguished performance by the Proteas saw them lose the first Test against Pakistan by the large margin of seven wickets. The batting, after posting totals of just 220 and 245, will once again be in the spotlight, but the fielding was also far inferior to that of the home side and the bowlers, while toiling manfully, lost the plot badly on the third morning.

A couple of key catches were missed in Pakistan’s first innings after they had been reduced to 27 for four, and there were also numerous ground fielding errors that released whatever pressure had been painstakingly built up by the bowlers. Pakistan were able to effectively rotate the strike and the intensity, which creates its own pressure, that one normally associates wit the South African fielding effort just wasn’t there.

Speaking of intensity, it was dismaying to see how flat the Proteas were on the crucial third morning. Pakistan began the day on 308 for eight, already 88 ahead, and it was vital for the visitors to wrap up the innings as quickly as possible. But apart from the persevering Rabada, the rest of the bowling was woeful as the lower-order lashed 70 runs off 74 balls to almost double the lead. They were vital runs that put the home side in firm control.

South Africa had also lost their way with questionable choices of bowlers and tactics with the second new ball. Pakistan were 214 for six when it was taken, still six runs behind. But Rabada only had three overs with it and soon it was part-time off-spinner Aiden Markram using it. The first 14 overs with the new ball saw 61 runs rattled up as the momentum clearly shifted.

But it was the batting that yet again let the Proteas down. They have scored more than 300 just once in their last 23 innings in Asia dating back to July 2014. To say they have a problem with spin is an understatement. Debutant Nauman Ali removed Dean Elgar and Quinton de Kock in the first innings and his left-arm spin ripped through the batting in the second innings as he took five for 35. Leg-spinner Yasir Shah also took seven wickets in the match.

The pitch was certainly conducive to spin but there were several soft dismissals. I wonder if the Proteas batsmen have full confidence in their skills against the turning ball? I say that because they tended to get stuck at one end, unable to rotate the strike, and then the ill-judged expansive shot would come, trying to break the shackles with a boundary rather than ticking over the scoreboard by manipulating singles.

Quinton de Kock was probably the biggest disappointment with the bat and his performance as captain also raised question marks.

In the first innings, instead of setting the example, he succumbed to impatience and tried to belt Nauman over the top of the infield but was caught at a wide mid-on, and in the second dig he went hard at a Yasir delivery, bat well in front of his pad, and was caught at short-leg.

De Kock has the air of a laid-back dreamer, and would never be described as being full of words. He is certainly more shy than outgoing and, while there is no doubting his cricketing intelligence, he’s never going to be the most vocal captain. On that flat third morning, South Africa needed someone, however, to stoke their fires.

But the most important reason for being concerned about De Kock as captain is that he does not seem to be enjoying the added responsibility. The joy of playing cricket has been his energy in the past, but in recent press conferences, the captaincy seems to be a chore for him, a duty rather than something he really enjoys. And worst of all, it seems to have robbed the Proteas of a batting genius who is at his best when playing with freedom. De Kock has now scored just 45 runs in four innings as captain.

SuperRugby completes the first month of its 2015 season this weekend and it’s not surprising, given the generally low standard of officiating, that the referees and their assistants have been in the spotlight this week.

There has been furious debate about whether the laws of the game were correctly applied at Loftus Versfeld last weekend when the Bulls beat the Sharks; and there is uproar steadily building as well over referee Nick Briant’s performance yesterday in Hamilton, especially towards the end of the Highlanders’ shock win over the Chiefs.

The Loftus Versfeld furore was mostly about Law 12 – the knock-on or throw forward, but perhaps the way to avoid these controversies that do serious damage to the game (nobody wants to watch a sport where the officials decide the outcome rather than the athletes) is to go to Law 6.

This law is about the Match Officials, but nowhere does it say they have to be competent!

In the white-hot arena of top-class rugby, mistakes will inevitably happen and nobody should crucify referees over those. But when a person sitting in a box in the stands gets several replays of an incident and still can’t make the correct decision, then questions need to be asked. The problem is that officials are way above the law and there is no accountability; their decisions never have to be explained. It’s a prime breeding ground for matchfixing, but WorldRugby is in denial of that as well.

The forward pass incident at Loftus has been dressed up as a technical issue involving the direction of the hands being obscured at the time of Jesse Kriel’s pass. TMO Johan Greeff believed the evidence was inconclusive, never mind the ball clearly travelling metres forward on its way to Francois Hougaard. It was such an obvious forward pass that most people picked it up while watching the game live.

If TMOs are going to be seen to have made the correct decision, which is the whole point of having them, then they are going to have to ditch this whole obsession with which direction the hands were going at the time of the pass. None of that technical mumbo jumbo, nothing about gravity or momentum, is even mentioned in the laws of rugby.

Obviously momentum is going to cause a ball to drift forward if the player who passes it is running, but this cannot result in the sort of forward pass Kriel threw to Hougaard.

“A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line,” is all Law 12 states. It’s simple but for several years now officials have conspired to complicate the whole issue with all this talk of “the direction of the hands”.

While they are at it, the lawmakers should also make the ruck laws simpler because, as things stand in this era of “interpretation”, the World Cup final is probably going to be decided by who the referee is.

It cannot be good for the game that the Bulls can have a referee one week (Andrew Lees) who barely blew anything at the ruck and the next week be officiated by somebody who blows to the letter of the law.

Nobody wants to have a game dominated by the officials, but they currently have way too much influence on the result and spectators have started to desert rugby as a result.