The absence of DRS was not the deciding factor in England’s comprehensive victory, as South Africa collapsed to 64 all out in less than 20 overs in their fourth innings. However, the host board’s decision not to spend a minimum of US$48,500 (R880,000) on the technology arguably contributed to the final margin between the teams, with at least three contentious umpiring calls all going against South Africa.
Dercksen was given not out on-field by umpire Kerrin Klaaste but, after consulting with her colleague, Klaaste called for an umpire review, a procedure that is typically used to determine whether a catch has been carried. The ball, however, had carried to Beaumont at chest-height – and while it is possible Klaaste was unsighted and needed to double check – TV umpire Bongale Jele duly gave the decision as out, despite clear doubts that Dercksen had inside-edged the ball. onto her pad.
“We all thought she hit it and obviously the umpire delayed the decision,” Knight said. “I think the review was around whether it was a bump ball, but it was pretty clear it wasn’t, so I’m not really sure what happened there.”
Mandla Mashimbyi, South Africa’s newly installed head coach, was similarly confused at the process that had led to the decision.
“There was no communication and I didn’t understand why,” he said. “It was quite bizarre. But the umpires feel they made the right decision and we can’t go against that.”
“We make do with what we have. Our job is to make sure we play good cricket. Those are things we can’t control. Obviously we will be disappointed with certain decisions but we can’t change what has happened. There are people that will be dealing with that, who are outside this room at the moment. If I leave it to myself, it might not be nice.”
Asked on day two if she felt hard done by, Kapp said: “We’re probably disappointed we were on the wrong side of it, but it goes both ways. That’s just the game. It’s never easy for the umpires out there. Even although you get upset when it doesn’t go your way, it’s still a hard job for them to be correct every single time.”
According to Enoch Nkwe, South Africa’s director of national teams and high performance, the absence of DRS for the Test had been agreed upon by the two boards at the planning stage of the tour. However, Knight claimed the first she had known of it was on the eve of the contest, after the system had been in use throughout the six white-ball matches at the start of the tour.
“I was pretty shocked when I found out in the umpire’s meeting the day before, that we weren’t going to have it,” she said. “I think it’s a real shame. You come to expect it as a player now, and I guess the reason is always money. But, particularly in Test cricket, where wickets are such a premium, it’s a really important thing to have. It’s probably a sign of the status of this game, maybe, that we didn’t have it, which is a bit frustrating.”
In his pre-match explanation, Nkwe added that the white-ball contests had been prioritized because the matches had a bearing on the team’s rankings in T20I cricket and the ICC Women’s Championship (IWC), as well as “the overall CSA strategy for the senior women’s national team”.
“It is worth noting that resources are currently being directed at the white-ball formats due to the significance of ODI and T20I cricket in the current women’s international cricket landscape,” he said.
Speaking on the second evening, Kapp agreed that she preferred DRS in the shorter formats. “It’s a new thing that we have DRS available,” she said. “I don’t believe we’ve had it available for T20s and ODI cricket. So it’s really helped in the ODI and T20 series. And if I have to be completely honest, I’d probably prefer having it in those two formats. “
Firdose Moonda is ESPNcricinfo’s correspondent for South Africa and women’s cricket
