There's alway a buzz in the air at the merest hint of controversy, and as rain provided a lengthy break on Friday afternoon the theories abounded.

Had Daryl Harper - not known for his technological brilliance - failed to turn the volume up, or was the sound technician from the SABC to blame for the third umpire not hearing the edge? If it was the latter, was he an unashamed South African supporter guilty of foul play?

Of course the incident in question was Graeme Smith's escape after England were convinced they had him caught behind in the 16th over of the South African innings. England reviewed Tony Hill's not out decision after Smith had stood his ground, only for Harper to uphold the on-field call saying he hadn't seen or heard anything. The problem was that anyone not watching the match on SABC had heard what seemed to be a clear edge.

The host broadcaster supplies both Supersport and Sky with a feed of pictures and sound, but both of those channels have their own broadcast van with a team controlling which angle they want, replays, graphics and sound levels. There's enough conflict between rival directors when one broadcast team is feeding off another, but throw in a third and it's no wonder we have controversy.

At the time of writing exactly who was to blame was undecided - it appears that the sound was down on the feed but Harper could have had the good sense to turn it up - but the exact cost to England was confirmed: 90 runs, at a good rate, off Smith's heavy blade.

England, perhaps as a result of Smith's success, asked the match referee Roshan Mahanama to clarify what the volume level should be during referrals in the wake of claims that Harper had his at four out of 10. Mahanama had previously made the assurance that the volume would be turned up as high as possible for reviews, given the absence of Hotspot or Snicko in this series.

The SABC have copped a fair amount of flak for their inability to pay for all the technology required to make the UDRS something approaching a watertight system. Certainly Hotspot would have prevented this palaver, and it seems likely that the local broadcaster will not retain the hosting rights to cricket in South Africa once their current contract with Cricket South Africa expires.

Certainly anyone familiar with the SABC's incompetence would immediately rule out the possibility of a conspiracy in this instance. The national broadcaster is deep in debt and recently underwent an overhaul at board level with reports suggesting that the new board is unhappy with the choice of a chief executive who was implicated in allegations of corruption involving R56-million while he was head of the SABC's programme commissioning department back in 2005.

They recently lost the rights to local football, and a similar fate now seems likely for cricket. That is something that should be celebrated, so long as they are able to buy the secondary rights off Supersport in the same way they have with football. The South African public must be able to watch cricket on free-to-air television or the game's development will take a hit.

Friday's episode has certainly been overhyped, but it has served to highlight the fact that without all the technology available the review system is a sitting duck for controversy. For that reason cricket needs to be broadcast by a channel that can assure the presence of every available gadget, although it would also help to use umpires with a bit of common sense.