***Official*** Australia in New Zealand 2016

[wellAlbidarned]

can't end a NZ vs Oz series without something controversial

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Chaotic process, not sure how I feel about that.

Same here. Not a fan of it, but the correct decision seemingly made.

I guess this isn't the same as a DRS decision as it was a question of whether the ball 'carried', for which the process is quite different to using the DRS to decide whether an edge was made.

 

[Flem274*]

i swear a caught and bowled off the foot has happened before.

 

[Burgey]

Lol imagine Ian smith if Australia didn't approach the umpire until after they'd seen an on field replay. The whole world would be on the verge of ending.

Dunno how Marsh didn't break his toe tbf.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

If Wade brings this home for us I think I'll have to drown myself in a toilet bowl that hasn't been flushed.

Same.

 

[hendrix]

only a half appeal though, otherwise the umps would've gone upstairs straight away I'm sure .

it was only a half appeal because Marsh has an ATG poker face.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

mccullum looking like a genius for holding back sodhi

 

[SteveNZ]

Henry definitely appealed at the time so yes, perfectly legal.

I get that, but we didn't call for a review right - that's the only way something can go upstairs? Not via a TV screen at the ground after a 'dismissal' has been turned down? I know the right decision was made, and of course I like it in this instance, but not sure correct procedure has been used.

 

[Spark]

only a half appeal though, otherwise the umps would've gone upstairs straight away I'm sure .

wrt to the legitimacy of the decision it's fine though. it does look kind of ramshackle that it only came about because they saw a big screen replay and the crowd started yelling, but eh. out is out.

it does open a can of worms wrt drs though, in theory.

 

[Bahnz]

Henry's been epic this summer. Gotta be in the test team.

 

[indiaholic]

How is that controversial?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

it was only a half appeal because Marsh has an ATG poker face.

yeah that would've ****ing hurt

 

[vandem]

What kind of process is this? Just watch the big screen for a review?

On-field umpires can go to 3rd umpire to check on groundings, normally for catches but have occasionally seen it for bump balls. Only issue here was that big screen replay showed before the two on-field umpires conferred.

 

[SteveNZ]

i swear a caught and bowled off the foot has happened before.

There was a not out in the 2001 VB series, Cairns to Boucher. Cairns appealed, everyone thought he was a bit of a muppet only to find on replay it was out, too late.

 

[Bahnz]

Why?

 

[indiaholic]

I get that, but we didn't call for a review right - that's the only way something can go upstairs? Not via a TV screen at the ground after a 'dismissal' has been turned down? I know the right decision was made, and of course I like it in this instance, but not sure correct procedure has been used.

Umpires can chose to go upstairs if they have any doubts.

 

[hendrix]

I get that, but we didn't call for a review right - that's the only way something can go upstairs? Not via a TV screen at the ground after a 'dismissal' has been turned down? I know the right decision was made, and of course I like it in this instance, but not sure correct procedure has been used.

It was an umpire's review rather than a players review, which is the way it's always been for bump balls and catches near the turf

 

[GotSpin]

On-field umpires can go to 3rd umpire to check on groundings, normally for catches but have occasionally seen it for bump balls. Only issue here was that big screen replay showed before the two on-field umpires conferred.

Ofcourse thats the issue. Just wait and watch the big screen now?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Umpires can chose to go upstairs if they have any doubts.

only about the legitimacy of catches and run outs though

 

[Burgey]

Lol that's not an appeal. It's a "**** I wish he'd chopped that on".