If in doubt bat, if you're still in doubt ask a pal and then bat. If you still have concerns and he says, field, then bat. This is slow and flat but something can be beaten out of it. The weather isn't looking too clever as they say which may change things.
Agreed with both selections. A combination of The Bold and The Desperate (could be the title of an American daytime soap opera) but it feels right. Mind you, they haven't bowled yet.

Well, controversy in Colombo. Pietersen edges Vaas to slip, Silva makes a porridge of taking a low catch low in front of him. He clutches the ball, then it bounds out behind him, with Sangakkara from first slip eventually intervening. After consultation with his colleague Aleem Dar,umpire Harper puts up his finger. As Pietersen makes his the big screed shows a replay. The ball hit the ground as Silva made his first attempt. Pietersen - wrongly - stops. Harper puits up his finger again. But a rum decision, reflecting well on none of the parties involved, batsman, fielders, umpires.
England in trouble.

Are you convinced that the ball hit the ground - I'm not. How could Silva have flicked the ball up unless he had fingers underneath the ball. The ball had no momentum at the time. We have seen on tv - Tony Greig - examples of the ball looking as though it was touching the turf with Graig having his fingers underneath the ball.

KP should not have stopped - it is the second time he has done this, the other occasion was at Lord's last summer against India. He could well be in trouble for that. Yes, all England's good work of the morning is now in danger of being spoilt.

It just goes to show how important a player's reaction is. Whether the umpire is right or wrong the player has to accept his decision. If they don't it will be anarchy out there.

The England players will convince themselves that they were on the wrong end of a poor decision but I am not convinced.The important thing is they do not allow it to affect them, and it appears it hasn't watching Collingwood bat. He has put some much needed vigour back in their batting. When Bell and Cook were together England were going nowhere.

Well, I agree (after field testing in laboratory conditions) that you can flick up an apple using the grip suggested by nj. Given the curvature of a ball, you don't need a finger all the way under to pull it up. I tend to also agree that the Silva catch was not taken cleanly, although I doubt the referee will do anything about it. Pietersen should not have lingered - but he may have thought that the umpire was asking for a replay after all. It would be ironic if he got summoned and fined, and Silva escaped scot-free. I can't honestly see how Silva could have taken it cleanly - and this is after watching numerous reruns. The TV commentators (including Jayasuriya) seemed to agree that it was not a clean catch, and should have called forth a replay, which would have produced a not out result. Couple that with Cook's wretched LBW decision, and the umpires have had a poor day at best. The one thing England must do is to take a steely determination to annihilate Sri Lanka into day 2. Sri Lanka have done little to earn their wickets, and you can argue that 3 of them were effectively gifts from Umpire Blunder (counting Bopara in the aftermath of the Cook LBW idiocy). England should remember this, and be determined to post a lot more runs tomorrow.

See what a nest of vipers you get when you put the cat among the pigeons. It was poor umpiring. I guess they could both claim to have been unsighted. Look where being honest got 'em. Silva should not be cautioned. Do not forget that he and his colleagues appealed knowing that television could prove that he was actually cheating. Olympian, nj and M. Harvie all seem convinced that the telly was conclusive. It wasn't, though I'm still on England's side in respect that it was not out. But other factors came into play. Kevin should have gone without questioning, no question. Players cannot have it all ways, no matter how sorry one feels for them in this instance. Read piece in Indy tomorrow. Incidentally, memory says that Fraser was one of the fuddy-duddies who came up with the regulations.

Where do we start. Cheers Olympian, at 42 I still hope I have something worthwhile to offer, but no offence taken.

nj, I would disagree that the replays confirmed that the ball touched the ground. Television pictures tell lies that is why the ICC will not use them for decision making. From a gantry high up in the air the camera always looks down on the incident and therefore there is no depth to the vision. Tony Greig and Dermot Reeve have performed experiments where the camera suggests the ball is touching the ground when they are actually holding it an inch above it.

Television replays, as of yet, are not good enough to be relied on except for line decisions, and even then when the actual moment the stumps are broken is mid-frame it can be difficult to see exactly what took place.

The orange theory sounds good in your front room but you try doing that diving full length to your left with an object that is travelleing to you at 80 mph. You don't have time to think, you just do it. I cannot be 100 per cent certain that the ball did not touch the ground but my gut feeling is that the umpires made the right decision. Had it been referred to a thrid umpire it would have been given not out, and that would probably have been the wrong decision. Where is the justice in that.

M.Harvie, welcome. As you may have gathered I am not a huge fan of technology. do we want the game to be driven by television executives or do we want it to remain the same as it has been for decades. If you use technology you have to go the whole hog. To eliminate any chance of error every appeal must be referred and the players will appeal for everything. Why not you have nothing to lose. The game would then come to a standstill on far too many occasions. Referring all decisions was trialed in the Australia v World eleven Test in Sydney some time ago. In one over three appeals were referred, taking approximately five minutes and by the end of it all the crowd were booing.

Add to this the cost of having independent cameras, officials checking the cameras - the mat used can be made wider or narrower if you wanted and the snickometer requires a technician to match the sound and the pictures together. Cricket would become very mucky.

It is disappointing when mistakes are made but I want cricket to retain a human touch, not become a game that is analysed and treated as though it were a surgical operation. Mistakes are made, they even themselves out, get on with it.

I keep hearing people say that umpiring errors even out - but I never see any proof of it. Could the panel supply some clear examples?

I wonder whether one example is really enough to prove a case. Also, I think England lost out badly in their first innings here because of two bad decisions by Harper, who simply is not elite quality as an umpire. Will that even out later? I very much doubt it - and sometimes that little extra is all it takes to lose a game. In a three match series, I really do not think such things balance out. On a point of order: what makes Pietersen "honest" if he does not walk when he knows he has hit it?