England and South Africa refused to back down last night after controversy hit the second npower Test at Headingley, with claims and counter-claims over a pair of low catches dismissed by Richard Kettleborough, the third umpire, on television evidence. Hashim Amla, who survived until the close after his reprieve, was booed as he left the field.

Mickey Arthur, the South Africa coach, suggested that Michael Vaughan got what he deserved when a claim against Amla was rejected late on because the England captain had criticised A. B. de Villiers face to face during the lunch break for saying that a catch at third slip against Andrew Strauss was taken cleanly.

In return, Peter Moores, the England head coach, said that Vaughan remained convinced that his own opportunity, at a time when England were fighting back strongly, was held legitimately. The England head coach rarely utters a critical word, but said that he was “disappointed” that De Villiers had claimed the earlier effort.

Just as the recent NatWest Series between England and New Zealand hit a flashpoint over Paul Collingwood’s refusal to call back Grant Elliott after a disputed run-out at the Brit Oval, events yesterday threatened to sour the relationship between the sides in a higher-profile campaign.

They also reignited the debate on the use of technology to help umpires. Two-dimensional television images have been shown to distort threedimensional events so that almost every low catch referred to the third umpire is cast in enough doubt by replays to make a “not out” verdict inevitable.

Amla was two thirds of the way off the field, having appeared to accept Vaughan’s word on the catch, when Arthur, who had seen the initial slow-motion film on television, emerged from the dressing-room to order him to stay. England were still celebrating a wicket that would have reduced South Africa to 76 for four.

“I am 100 per cent sure that the ball bounced,” Arthur said. “I thought I was well within my rights to tell Amla, one of our key players, to stay. He is probably the most polite guy in the world, a very disciplined boy who would not question anybody. I wanted to make sure the correct decision was made.”

The De Villiers catch appeared questionable immediately and Arthur admitted that it “looked ugly” for the fielder, who said that an edge from Strauss had gone from one hand into the other. While Vaughan’s effort remained unclear, the first replay showed that De Villiers had dropped the catch before scooping it up.

Arthur, defending his player, said: “A. B. apologised to Strauss straight away and it is fair to say he took a lot of criticism at lunchtime from some of the England players — from Michael Vaughan himself. There is a Mother Cricket who does not sleep and she came back to haunt Vaughan later in the day.”

Moores suggested that the two catches should not be bracketed together. “The De Villiers catch was dropped and looked to be dropped,” he said. “People will see it and decide whether they think it was a catch. It was fairly obvious from the screen what happened. Everybody will have a view; I thought it was disappointing.

“I have nothing against Amla. If your team tells you to stay, you have to stay out there. I would say that when it was shown on the big screen, it was Vaughan who said to the umpires that maybe they should refer it. He thought it was a clean catch.”

In the Lord’s Test against India last year, Kevin Pietersen received the benefit of the doubt when cameras suggested that a catch by Mahendra Singh Dhoni off Zaheer Khan had touched the ground.

During the 2005 Ashes, England declined a suggestion by Ricky Ponting, the Australia captain, that the problem of inconclusive replays could be overcome if both sides accepted the fielder’s word. England declined to try out an ICC scheme in the present series, which would have allowed three referrals per side per innings.