Durham Day 2

If you’re inclined to question Hughesy’s suggestion that, by and large, you can only bat as well as you’re allowed to I’d point you straight towards Day Two at Chester-le-Street, where, for a while, it looked like the wheels had fallen off again.

At 2-12 and 3-49, with the three being Warner, Khawaja and Clarke there was a fair chance the total would struggle to get much past the hundred mark, and without Chris Rogers that may well have been the case. The Australian batting lineup has demonstrated extreme fragility for a while, and a repeat performance certainly looked to be on the cards this time around on a deck that seems to have form when it comes to low totals and conditions that definitely suited the bowlers.

They were the sort of conditions where it was a matter of getting the head down and grafting, and with years of experience in English conditions Rogers was the man to do the grafting, which is why he was included in the side in the first place. Sixty first class centuries, with the majority of them scored in England and all that.

We’re not suggesting for a moment that he’s a long term solution at the top of the order. Thirty-six year olds have a limited shelf life but he’ll do for the rest of the tour and if his form holds in the early part of the Australian summer he should hold his place.

We’re not suggesting there wasn’t a fair dose of luck involved with the Rogers ton either. Luck’s a fickle thing, and in those conditions you’re going to need a healthy dose of it.

The biggest talking point to come out of the day was, to me, the Decision Referral System (again), but this time I think they’ve got it wrong. Or, rather, Hughesy’s bush lawyer instincts suggest they’re about to get it severely wrong.

Unless they’ve changed the law, an appeal for a wicket covers all avenues of dismissal, and fair enough. Most of the time there’s only one called into question, and the decision is given on what the umpire considered to be the most likely form of dismissal.

Go up for a catch behind and the umpire will adjudicate on that. If you don’t like the decision and the facility to refer the decision is available, fair enough, refer it.

But if you do, you’re referring that particular decision. England referred an LBW shout, Rogers hit a four and then got given out caught behind. He refers it. Fair enough. The third umpire picks up the forensic hot spot on the pad, referral upheld, end of story. Rogers had asked the umpire to confirm the decision was for a catch behind. Everyone knew what was under scrutiny.

If England wanted to question the possibility of LBW that was the time to do it. Once the referral process kicks in everyone gets a look and it’s a bit rich to start bringing in other possibilities you’ve just noticed after the process is under way.

My understanding is that after October a referral will bring everything back into play. If you’re batting and you make the referral you’re basically looking at a question of whether you hit the ball or whether the ball did what was required to deliver the LBW decision.

As far as hitting the ball goes, batsmen aren’t always the best judges, and they’re not always inclined to be honest either, but they’ve only got two referrals, and if someone wants to try it on when he’s feathered one through to the keeper and been given out he lives or dies by the sword (or so to speak). Take a punt on the referral when you suspect you may have nicked it and have the referral turned down and it’s tough luck.

Bringing everything back into play would seem, at least from where I’m sitting, to deliver a substantial advantage to the fielding side.

If the batsman refers the catch behind because he knows he didn’t nick it and felt the ball brush the thigh pad should he reconsider the possible referral because he might be out LBW instead?

If he refers the catch behind, but then gets given out LBW, does the batting side lose a referral?

Switch the scenario slightly, and have the batsman given not out when there was a sound as the ball flew through to the keeper. Have the fielding side refer it, get a not out for the catch. That should mean they lose a referral. If they do, and the third umpire sees something that suggests LBW, fair enough.

But if the fielding side, with two referrals in hand, refer it, get a not out for the catch, then pick up an LBW and still have two referrals left that’s getting a bit rich for mine.

Almost as rich as Stuart Broad doing his nana about an umpiring mistake, but we know not to expect consistency in these matters, don’t we?

Actually, the whole DRS bit is starting to look like a field day for bush lawyers, and you can make a fair case for getting rid of it entirely. That, of course, would suit the BCCI right down to the ground, which is, of course, the strongest argument for keeping it.

From here, with three days to play and a small deficit, this particular Test is anyone’s game, and anything approaching a prediction is even dodgier than it would be under supposedly normal circumstances.

Taking things hour by hour, if Rogers and Haddin are still there at drinks, Australia should have a slim lead. If they’re both still there at lunch, that lead should be somewhere around fifty. From there, anything could happen, and more than likely will.

If you had make a call, however, you’d probably be inclined to suggest Australia has the nose in front at this point, but there’s only a nostril in it.