SA Footy

bennymacca wrote:Yep agree. Poor umpiring but the right decision was made in the end.

Dogwatcher wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Yep agree. Poor umpiring but the right decision was made in the end.

No, it wasn't.
You have a certain amount of time to review, not a certain time to review or until the replay's shown.

Grahaml wrote:The Marsh one isn't about the decision, but the process. If the ICC don't quickly step in and say this was an error in protocol and clamp down on it then we'll have a potential mine field on our hands. I know in the NFL there's a clear difference between how quickly it takes for a replay of a close call to be shown based on whether the call went for or against the home side. I don't think we want to see that in cricket. Either everyone gets to see a replay first, or nobody does. Bet Warner wishes he'd got a replay of his LBW the other day to help with that decision.

Lightning McQueen wrote:I'd rather see the correct decision being made no matter how it was achieved.

We're a precious mob, we'd be screaming blue murder if it was on the other foot.

Dogwatcher wrote:Exactly - the point is, waiting to see a replay is not part of the laws.
Whether the players appealed is a moot point. The decision was made and would not have been reviewed, if not for the replay.
You don't get time + replay to review the decision. You get time.
And you don't fix a wrong via another wrong. Crap umpiring.

So much for New Zealand playing to the 'spirit' of the game...
It just proves NZ will also take every advantage to win a game, just as Aussies will.

Booney wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Exactly - the point is, waiting to see a replay is not part of the laws.
Whether the players appealed is a moot point. The decision was made and would not have been reviewed, if not for the replay.
You don't get time + replay to review the decision. You get time.
And you don't fix a wrong via another wrong. Crap umpiring.

So much for New Zealand playing to the 'spirit' of the game...
It just proves NZ will also take every advantage to win a game, just as Aussies will.

Excellent post, mate. Especially the "spirit" of the game. McCullum had the opportunity when the umpire approached him to just say "Let's get on with the game" and that would have been keeping with his mantra of playing in the right spirit.

He too watched the replay more than once and when approached by the umpire went the soft touch and let the umpire decide. I reakon when Marsh walked off McCullum might have been genuinely apologetic, but not enough to call him back.

Booney wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Exactly - the point is, waiting to see a replay is not part of the laws.
Whether the players appealed is a moot point. The decision was made and would not have been reviewed, if not for the replay.
You don't get time + replay to review the decision. You get time.
And you don't fix a wrong via another wrong. Crap umpiring.

So much for New Zealand playing to the 'spirit' of the game...
It just proves NZ will also take every advantage to win a game, just as Aussies will.

Excellent post, mate. Especially the "spirit" of the game. McCullum had the opportunity when the umpire approached him to just say "Let's get on with the game" and that would have been keeping with his mantra of playing in the right spirit.

He too watched the replay more than once and when approached by the umpire went the soft touch and let the umpire decide. I reakon when Marsh walked off McCullum might have been genuinely apologetic, but not enough to call him back.

bennymacca wrote:

Booney wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Exactly - the point is, waiting to see a replay is not part of the laws.
Whether the players appealed is a moot point. The decision was made and would not have been reviewed, if not for the replay.
You don't get time + replay to review the decision. You get time.
And you don't fix a wrong via another wrong. Crap umpiring.

So much for New Zealand playing to the 'spirit' of the game...
It just proves NZ will also take every advantage to win a game, just as Aussies will.

Excellent post, mate. Especially the "spirit" of the game. McCullum had the opportunity when the umpire approached him to just say "Let's get on with the game" and that would have been keeping with his mantra of playing in the right spirit.

He too watched the replay more than once and when approached by the umpire went the soft touch and let the umpire decide. I reakon when Marsh walked off McCullum might have been genuinely apologetic, but not enough to call him back.

Lol if it happened to a kiwi all you blokes wouldn't say a word.

He was clearly out, so the right decision was made.

How many of you saying it shouldn't be out also chastised India for not having drs?

bennymacca wrote:This article sums it up nicely. The process was terrible and it shouldn't have occurred in the way it did, but I would rather the right decision be made than not

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/steve-sm ... ign=nzvaus

bennymacca wrote: Lol if it happened to a kiwi all you blokes wouldn't say a word.

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:This article sums it up nicely. The process was terrible and it shouldn't have occurred in the way it did, but I would rather the right decision be made than not

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/steve-sm ... ign=nzvaus

Is it the right decision though if the umpires went against any 'review rules' that exist.

bennymacca wrote:

Booney wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Exactly - the point is, waiting to see a replay is not part of the laws.
Whether the players appealed is a moot point. The decision was made and would not have been reviewed, if not for the replay.
You don't get time + replay to review the decision. You get time.
And you don't fix a wrong via another wrong. Crap umpiring.

So much for New Zealand playing to the 'spirit' of the game...
It just proves NZ will also take every advantage to win a game, just as Aussies will.

Excellent post, mate. Especially the "spirit" of the game. McCullum had the opportunity when the umpire approached him to just say "Let's get on with the game" and that would have been keeping with his mantra of playing in the right spirit.

He too watched the replay more than once and when approached by the umpire went the soft touch and let the umpire decide. I reakon when Marsh walked off McCullum might have been genuinely apologetic, but not enough to call him back.

Lol if it happened to a kiwi all you blokes wouldn't say a word.

He was clearly out, so the right decision was made.

How many of you saying it shouldn't be out also chastised India for not having drs?

Dogwatcher wrote:

bennymacca wrote: Lol if it happened to a kiwi all you blokes wouldn't say a word.

BS, I'd still say it was wrong.
It's a terrible precedent and umpires shouldn't be making up rules on the fly.
If the cricket world thinks this precedent should be followed, fix the rules. Or get used to seeing the home side selectively replaying incidents in order to influence results in their direction. You think it won't play that way?

Cricket, never a gentleman's game.
McCullum can hide behind the nice-guy act all he likes, but he pushes the envelope as much as the next Aussie, and good on him - just don't try and portray yourself as something you aren't.

bennymacca wrote:

Booney wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Exactly - the point is, waiting to see a replay is not part of the laws.
Whether the players appealed is a moot point. The decision was made and would not have been reviewed, if not for the replay.
You don't get time + replay to review the decision. You get time.
And you don't fix a wrong via another wrong. Crap umpiring.

So much for New Zealand playing to the 'spirit' of the game...
It just proves NZ will also take every advantage to win a game, just as Aussies will.

Excellent post, mate. Especially the "spirit" of the game. McCullum had the opportunity when the umpire approached him to just say "Let's get on with the game" and that would have been keeping with his mantra of playing in the right spirit.

He too watched the replay more than once and when approached by the umpire went the soft touch and let the umpire decide. I reakon when Marsh walked off McCullum might have been genuinely apologetic, but not enough to call him back.

Lol if it happened to a kiwi all you blokes wouldn't say a word.

He was clearly out, so the right decision was made.

How many of you saying it shouldn't be out also chastised India for not having drs?