Umpires escape quot;stumpingquot; by SA cricketer

ADELAIDE, February 4: An unnamed South African cricketer, who allegedly used a stump to batter the door of the umpires' room after the Test ...

ADELAIDE, February 4: An unnamed South African cricketer, who allegedly used a stump to batter the door of the umpires8217; room after the Test draw against Australia escaped punishment today.

A one-inch dent was left in the door, which the visiting team must pass on the way to its dressing room, said South Australian Cricket Association operations manager Harvey Jolly.

No umpire was in the room when the damage was done.

But Jolly said it was a minor incident with far worse things happening in the past to the dressing rooms at the Adelaide Oval.

Reports claimed today one of the South African players hit the door in anger at the decision of third umpire Steve Davis to give Australia8217;s match-saver Mark Waugh not out when he dislodged the bails nine overs from the end of the match.

The South Africans were fuming, claiming Waugh, who had scored 107 at the time, should have been out hit wicket. His escape, with Australia in trouble at 213 for six in their second innings, enabled the home team to play out adraw and hang-on to their 1-0 series lead. Jolly said the South Africans were understandably angry and frustrated by the outcome of the Test.

quot;These things happen in cricket, but the South Africans have been brilliant visitors to the city and no action will be taken.quot;

Story continues below this ad

Opinion over the controversial verdict was divided. Waugh, it may be recalled, was hit in the arm by a short ball from Shaun Pollock late on the last day of the drawn Test and ambled around his crease for about a second before he dislodged the bails with his bat.

The South Africans, who originally appealed for a catch with the ball ballooning from his arm to gully, soon pointed to the broken wicket and claimed Waugh was out hit- wicket.

And at least one of the South African players, who so vehemently objected the third umpire8217;s not out decision, backed down today with wicketkeeper Dave Richardson saying Waugh may not have been out.

quot;We were watching the catch being taken and a lot of us didn8217;t really see exactly how the bails wereknocked off. Having seen it on television, I can see there8217;s room for argument either way,quot; Richardson said.

Story continues below this ad

His opinion was in sharp contrast to skipper Hansie Cronje. quot;If somebody gets hit on the head and he8217;s a bit wobbly and he walk8217;s on the stumps, he8217;s out,quot; Cronje said.

However the Australian Cricket Board8217;s national umpiring manager Tony Crafter stood by the decision of third umpire Steve Davis and said Cronje8217;s analogy was wrong.

quot;He can be out if he8217;s hit by a ball and he immediately falls onto his wicket or his bat immediately breaks the stumps,quot; Crafter said.

In the circumstances of a striker being hit and then staggering around the crease area for a short time, the umpire at the bowler8217;s end or square leg will be required to signal dead ball. quot;It8217;s provided for under the dead ball law that in the case of serious injury to a player, the umpire can intervene immediately.quot;

Story continues below this ad

In Johannesburg, international umpire Cyril Mitchley agreed with Cronje8217;s line of thinking on the incident. Mitchley,a veteran umpire in international cricket, said: quot;There was no doubt in my mind he was out,quot; Mitchley told the Star newspaper, published in Johannesburg.

He cited the book Cricket Umpiring and Scoring by Tom Smith for his opinion, noting law 35 says quot;any actionquot; that dislodges the bails during play means the batsman is out.

Australian skipper Mark Taylor opined: quot;My understanding of the rule is that the batsman has to be either preparing to play or actually playing a shot or attempting to run after playing the shot. Mark took about two steps away from the crease after being hit and was not involved in playing a shot.quot;

A video of the incident might be viewed at the International Cricket Council8217;s umpires8217; meeting later this year before deciding whether the hit wicket law needed to be clarified.