3rd ODI: New Zealand v Australia at Hamilton on Feb 8, 2016

[Iafeta]

We get that. But, NZ didn't go up to the ground tech guys controller and push the button for it to come up. And for all the spirit of cricket talk, no team would have sat idly by once it came up. Seriously, you blokes are kidding yourselves if the second that comes up you don't go to the umpire. It's tough, but fair. Firstly there was an appeal. Secondly you can still appeal up to the point of a bowler running in for the next ball. Thirdly it was blatantly out. Fourthly it's not a captains referral, it's the umpires who requested a referral. Smith would have been talking to the umpire. All captains would have.

Seriously this whole nice guy thing has gone out of control. If Brad Haddin doesn't cream his pants about how he's into bad boys and hates nice guys, this whole thing never causes an eyelid to flutter. The Kiwis are probably the team that sledges the least, but honestly I think it's as much of its not their personal nature than a cause to revolutionise cricket. I think the change in attitude they have talked about is more about aggression. Aggressive batting, aggressive fielding, happy to go for runs with 4 slips in an ODI if it means there is a wicket chance. It's all a calculated strategy of course.

There's no way the ICC has enough foresight to put a policy in place to prevent a replay coming up in that situation. They've been too busy lining the coffers of the fat cats, Australia, India and England to care about anything else. We have the West Indians falling into oblivion, match fixing going on because in some countries player payments are so poor it becomes mighty enticing, and yet all the ICC have worried about are the big dogs.

FWIW, I don't see the problem with the replay per Se. But it has to be applied consistently one way or the other. The best way in a situation like that is to encourage all three umpires to be more proactive in seeking clarification. I'd rather see two of them a game if those dismissals occur. Fact is, he was out.

 

[Twizzle]

The media reporting on this is just ridiculous, nothing more than clickbait. Aussie media should hang their head in shame, anything to sell chip wrappers. Its not how most Aussies feel, they are copping a ton of backlash on social media.

One article said underarm bowling is back.

The only balanced article I read was from cricket.com.au

Opposing captains agree Mitchell Marsh was out, but unhappy with how call was made

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/stev...acebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nzvaus

 

[Bazal]

They appealed... the mistake was Gould should have checked it as a matter of course - the veracity of the appeal is irrelevant

Again, the outrage from Marsh on the field, and others since is hilarious - very classy, there are reports to be made, do things via proper channels, don't engage in heated debates on the field when they can obviously be avoided (Doull should never have put Smith on the spot) - but the histrionics from the Australians were laughable, and the media whinging unbelievable - the constant line is "we just want the right decision made", then one is under less than ideal circumstances and you're crying foul, one wasn't at Adelaide and you celebrate what you think is a dominant win.

Marsh knew he was out, the pouting etc was churlish, as was Wade's bullshit - as Elliott said to Wade "love your work" :lol:

I don't believe they genuinely appealed until they saw the replay. But that's the conjecture. What constitutes an appeal? The rest of your post is basically just hyperbole that should be aimed at other Aussie posters

Pretty simple solution is to not show replays until a ball later. Avoids the whole mess entirely then.

 

[JJ]

. What constitutes an appeal? .

Asking the umpire if it's out

 

[The Charlatan]

I think those who think the conjecture is over the correctness of the decision have totally missed the point.

Do you think it's a good thing, moving forward, for teams to watch the big screen replay and then appeal? That's the controversy, what there is of it anyway.

I understand why people are angry, but I'd rather the right decision be reached than a technicality on when the dismissal was questioned and reviewed.

I know if the shoe was on the other foot, we'd be blowing up deluxe.

 

[Twizzle]

We get that. But, NZ didn't go up to the ground tech guys controller and push the button for it to come up. And for all the spirit of cricket talk, no team would have sat idly by once it came up. Seriously, you blokes are kidding yourselves if the second that comes up you don't go to the umpire. It's tough, but fair. Firstly there was an appeal. Secondly you can still appeal up to the point of a bowler running in for the next ball. Thirdly it was blatantly out. Fourthly it's not a captains referral, it's the umpires who requested a referral. Smith would have been talking to the umpire. All captains would have.

Seriously this whole nice guy thing has gone out of control. If Brad Haddin doesn't cream his pants about how he's into bad boys and hates nice guys, this whole thing never causes an eyelid to flutter. The Kiwis are probably the team that sledges the least, but honestly I think it's as much of its not their personal nature than a cause to revolutionise cricket. I think the change in attitude they have talked about is more about aggression. Aggressive batting, aggressive fielding, happy to go for runs with 4 slips in an ODI if it means there is a wicket chance. It's all a calculated strategy of course.

There's no way the ICC has enough foresight to put a policy in place to prevent a replay coming up in that situation. They've been too busy lining the coffers of the fat cats, Australia, India and England to care about anything else. We have the West Indians falling into oblivion, match fixing going on because in some countries player payments are so poor it becomes mighty enticing, and yet all the ICC have worried about are the big dogs.

FWIW, I don't see the problem with the replay per Se. But it has to be applied consistently one way or the other. The best way in a situation like that is to encourage all three umpires to be more proactive in seeking clarification. I'd rather see two of them a game if those dismissals occur. Fact is, he was out.

I read an article this morning to say this will change based on the match referees recommendations.

OK to replay but when the ball is dead so it wont affect any on field decisions.

 

[Bazal]

Asking the umpire if it's out

I don't believe NZ did that in this case. Henry was looking at the keeper, said "how was that?", and the umpire wasn't approached until the replay was shown. That's the issue for mine, not the decision itself

 

[JJ]

well, the ICC can pick the bones out of the process, which everyone agrees wasn't ideal. But the right decision was made, so this supposed controversy is idiotic

Gould should have checked it immediately, perhaps Henry should have appealed more strongly - but we've all seen them check obvious bump balls, so that one was well worth checking, and very clearly out

 

[Twizzle]

well, the ICC can pick the bones out of the process, which everyone agrees wasn't ideal. But the right decision was made, so this supposed controversy is idiotic

Gould should have checked it immediately, perhaps Henry should have appealed more strongly - but we've all seen them check obvious bump balls, so that one was well worth checking, and very clearly out

Are you suggesting that its OK to view the on field replay prior to the players or umpire reviewing the incident ?

Thats the only issue here, no one is suggesting MMarsh was not out.

 

[JJ]

Are you suggesting that its OK to view the on field replay prior to the players or umpire reviewing the incident ?

Thats the only issue here, no one is suggesting MMarsh was not out.

No, I am not - I've said over and over Gould should have reviewed straight away - there was obvious uncertainty. Perhaps Henry's mistake for not appealing more strongly, but that shouldn't matter. You yourself said the media histrionics were OTT, that's my problem - this is not the underam, bodyline, the Dyer catch or even the Llong clusterf**k

A I said, how it unfolded wasn't ideal - but the correct decision was made, the ICC can deal with the rest - and rather than confront match referees publicly the Australian management should put in their reports and the ICC can ensure protocols are adhered to

 

[Twizzle]

and thats what made it controversial

 

[JJ]

and thats what made it controversial

in a pretty minor way imo...

 

[Iafeta]

You're right Twiz, the Australian media have gone into shameful tabloid mode. No captain, nice guys or not, ignores a dead set wicket at a critical moment in an international when it becomes obvious it's blatantly out. Smith would be kidding himself if he reckons he wouldn't have done the same.

The issue solely lies with the ICC. It has nothing to do with the New Zealand team. They played within the framework of the events that unfolded in front of them. Just as any other team would have.

 

[Pete Cash]

My only issue is this (besides henry not appealing to the umpire. I f**king hate that. Should be an automatic fine)

We live under a stupid drs system where captains are expected to umpire the game as well as captain. The use of drs is now considered a tactical skill. So to me it should be against the rules to show a replay in the stadium until the next ball is bowled while the current absurd rules are in place.

Id rather technology was used to decide every dismissal if time allowed it but thats not where we are. What if something like this happened but it was against the home side and it was tactically decided not to show it on the screen until after the next ball. Then a batsman who was equally out is suddenly not out.

 

[mozza91]

You're right Twiz, the Australian media have gone into shameful tabloid mode. No captain, nice guys or not, ignores a dead set wicket at a critical moment in an international when it becomes obvious it's blatantly out. Smith would be kidding himself if he reckons he wouldn't have done the same.

Smith would have done absolutely done the same thing, no doubt about it. But I'd be willing to bet if it had happened in reverse order NZ fans and the Aussies haters at cricinfo alike would tearing strips off him for winning at all costs and not playing in the spirit of cricket.

The reaction has been way over the top for sure. At the end of the day Marsh was out, the right decision got made and the better team won. Now let's start focusing on the Tests.

 

[juro]

Had a read of a couple of Aussie newspapers today- there's some high quality sooking in print today.

Are you seriously surprised with this? Let me guess, you checked out the Daily Telegraph?

 

[juro]

I didn't see it live, and have not seen a full replay. How long did it take for the umpires to review the decision? I know that for DRS, the team wanting the review has a time limit. Does this also apply here?






Also, I read that the umpires didn't even hear the appeal at first. I would suggest that if you want to seriously ask the question, it needs to be audible! If the bowler has turned around and walked back to bowl the next ball, he couldn't have been too confident...

 

[gordsy]

I watched the fox sports video and was left confused. Do you have to verbally appeal in that situation or is raising the ball / body language that gives the impression you;re asking the question {which is all the bowler seemed to do} enough

 

[Iafeta]

Smith would have done absolutely done the same thing, no doubt about it. But I'd be willing to bet if it had happened in reverse order NZ fans and the Aussies haters at cricinfo alike would tearing strips off him for winning at all costs and not playing in the spirit of cricket.

The reaction has been way over the top for sure. At the end of the day Marsh was out, the right decision got made and the better team won. Now let's start focusing on the Tests.

My own feeling would be more about terrible luck. At least I think I would. FWIW I think most Australians have accepted the right team won and that it was out, but there will be a vocal minority spurred on by half wits like the Telegraph and I dare say Gavin Robertson and Peter Tunks types this afternoon.

 

[Iafeta]

I didn't see it live, and have not seen a full replay. How long did it take for the umpires to review the decision? I know that for DRS, the team wanting the review has a time limit. Does this also apply here?






Also, I read that the umpires didn't even hear the appeal at first. I would suggest that if you want to seriously ask the question, it needs to be audible! If the bowler has turned around and walked back to bowl the next ball, he couldn't have been too confident...

No. But it'd unlikely it'd be considered if you don't see or hear an appeal. Henry does appeal, albeit quietly but that is an appeal. The ferocity of the appeal isn't overly relevant. It's a case of yes or no. In this case he did appeal.

I watched the fox sports video and was left confused. Do you have to verbally appeal in that situation or is raising the ball / body language that gives the impression you;re asking the question {which is all the bowler seemed to do} enough

He does talk. Sure he didn't yell. But that would be enough to lodge an appeal. Bare in mind, when it was on the big screen, because Henry hasn't run in to bowl the next delivery an appeal can be lodged. This is why the timing of the replay issue needs to be reviewed. The issue isn't what NZ did or didn't do, because that was completely legitimate, but rather why the initial appeal was not referred (umpiring error) and when the replay went up at the ground (which suggests there is no ICC policy on this - pro it or out ruling it)