The lack 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 the fourth innings. However, the host board’s decision not to spend at least $48,500 (R880,000) on the technology arguably contributed to the final lead between the teams, as at least three controversial refereeing decisions all went against South Africa.

Dercksen was not given out on the pitch by referee Kerrin Klaaste, but after consulting with her colleague, Klaaste requested a review by the referee, a procedure normally used to determine whether a catch was successful. However, the ball had flown to Beaumont at chest height – and although it was possible that Klaaste was out of sight and had to check again – TV referee Bongale Jele duly ruled that he was out, although there was clear doubt that Dercksen had hit the ball inside onto her block.

“We all thought she had scored and obviously the referee delayed the decision,” Knight said. “I think the review was about whether it was a bump ball, but it was pretty clear that it wasn’t, so I’m not really sure what happened there.”

Mandla Mashimbyi, South Africa’s newly appointed head coach, was also confused about the process that led to the decision.

“There was no communication and I didn’t understand why,” he said. “It was pretty bizarre. But the referees feel they made the right decision and we can’t go against it.”

“We make do with what we have. Our job is to make sure we play good cricket. These are things we cannot control. Of course we will be disappointed by certain decisions, but we cannot change what happened. There are people.” That will take care of who is outside this room at the moment. If I left it to my own devices, it might not be nice.

When asked on day two if she felt exhausted, Kapp said: “We’re probably disappointed that we were on the wrong side, but it goes both ways. That’s just the game. It’s never easy for the referees out there. Even.” Even if you get upset when things don’t go the way you want, it’s still a hard task for them to get it right every time.”

According to Enoch Nkwe, South Africa’s director of national teams and high performance, the two bodies had agreed during the planning stages of the tour that DRS would not be available for the test. However, Knight claimed she first learned of it on the eve of the competition, after the system was in use during the six white-ball games at the start of the tour.

“I was pretty shocked when I found out in the referees’ meeting the day before that we weren’t going to get it,” she said. “I think it’s a real shame. As a player, you’ve come to expect that, and I guess the reason for that is always money. But especially in Test cricket, where wickets are so valuable, it’s a really important thing. This is it.’ Probably a sign of the status of this game, maybe also that we didn’t have it, which is a bit frustrating.

In his pre-match statement, Nkwe added that the white-ball competitions had been given priority as the matches had an impact on the team’s rankings in T20I cricket and the ICC Women’s Championship (IWC), as well as “the overall CSA Strategy for “senior women’s national team”.

“It is worth noting that due to the importance of ODI and T20I cricket in the current women’s international cricket landscape, resources are currently being directed towards the white-ball formats,” he said.

On the second night, Kapp agreed that she preferred DRS in the shorter formats. “It is something new that we have DRS available,” she said. “I don’t think we had it available for T20s and ODI cricket. So it really helped in the ODI and T20 series. And if I have to be completely honest, I would probably rather have it in both of those formats.”