Australian ODI Squad for NZ tour

[Dogwatcher]

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.

[bennymacca]

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.

The players didn't review, and for catches they don't have to. As long as they appealed the umpires can send it upstairs. They took way too long to do this but it wasn't the players that asked for it

[Dogwatcher]

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.

[Lightning McQueen]

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.

[Lightning McQueen]

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.

Warner was advised that he should've referred it, his fault.

[Dogwatcher]

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.

I wouldn't, especially if we barely appealed.
If we're going to review via in-ground replays, let's get it clear in the laws (or, do as they do at other sports, don't show controversial replays).

[Booney]

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.

[Lightning McQueen]

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.

He was out, he was adjudged out, bad luck.

[bennymacca]

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?

[carey]

Benny I cant believe this but I 100% agree with you.

I've picked myself up off the floor!

[whufc]

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?

You are right 100% the right decision was made which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But surely even yourself could see how having major rules on the fly could be a dangerous situation in any sport anywhere in the world.

Do you think that replay would have came up as quick if it was a NZ batter, or should that all be part of the home ground advantage.

Because they got the decision right im slightly less critical but two umpires making up their own rules in a tight international game of cricket would have to be close to sack able.

[bennymacca]

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

[whufc]

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.

[Dogwatcher]

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.

[Dogwatcher]

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.

Exactly.

[Booney]

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?

I don't keep up with the rules of the day, I'm a busy man, so can you tell me when the big screen replay started being used by the crowd/umpires/captain for DRS?

[whufc]

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.

Yep can you imagine giving channel nine power over whether to selectively show 'snicko' or not depending on what bias they have for the decision.

We will have a billion and one tied tests that go into the last session on the fifth day in the next couple of years.

[whufc]

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?

But they don't pick and choose when they use it..............................they simply don't use it ever.

[Dogwatcher]

Allowing DRS to be influenced by in-ground replays would certainly make the Indians more conducive to using it, I bet.

[mighty_tiger_79]

The players made an appeal, umpire Ian Gould claims he never heard an appeal.....

Gould needs to be sacked for failing to be aware of what went on around him