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

[wellAlbidarned]

....and tbh, I'm trying to imagine a bowler who is actually slow enough for my scenario to be realistic and I'm not convinced it's possible. But I think it's the fact that that COULD happen which determines the rules. Perhaps you have a point that that's silly.

Tbf even if the player doesn't consciously change their shot it's still off-putting so the rule is fair enough. Doesn't make this situation any less ****ing infuriating, mind.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Very good discussion on that no ball incident. I was outraged when I saw the replay, but some of the points from the other side have made sense. Its a rule with an inherent double standard which is annoying but probably unavoidable. Once again, though, this would be solved by automating the front foot. Not handing it over to the third umpire. Fully automate it with a ****ing buzzer. Problem solved.

Also, Bracewell is such an unlucky ****.

 

[Redbacks]

Pretty poor call as it was clearly behind the line. I guess the umpire only got a look as his heel lifts and it caused the error.

Also it's unlikely a bowling captain will review as players aren't going to be looking at the line during a delivery so it would only be guess work without a replay on the big screen.

 

[jcas0167]

You have to wonder if the umpire was looking hard for a no-ball given Bracewell's history of delivering them. Introducing a hawkeye type system might be something cricket administrators should look at. This type of situation is embarrassing, infuriating and depressing.

 

[straw man]

ICC committee rules out reviews of wrong no-ball calls | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Reviews of erroneous no-ball calls like that one that reprieved Adam Voges in Wellington have been debated and overruled by the ICC cricket committee, on the basis that the batsman should not be judged on how he played a ball that was ruled illegal before he did so.

The cricket committee debates emerged in the aftermath of Voges' fortunate escape in the final over of the day, when he shouldered arms to Doug Bracewell only to be relieved to see the sight of Richard Illingworth's outstretched arm signalling an illegal delivery. Replays showed that Bracewell had not actually overstepped, but there is no recourse for players to ask that the on-field umpire's call be checked.

Amid widespread dismay at the sequence of events, ESPNcricinfo has learned that the scenario was the subject of discussion at the cricket committee on more than one occasion. A consistent view was maintained that the batsman's action in playing or not playing the ball has to be considered influenced by the call and thus "inadmissable" as a dismissal.

The game gains almost nothing from the umpires attempting to call the no-ball so quickly that the batsman can react and is affected either positively or negatively. Meanwhile it loses some ability to get the call right. I would have no hesitation in scrapping this requirement in favour of a better system.

 

[straw man]

Surely the most surprising part of this whole debacle is the reaction from Steve Smith. I would have thought that as soon as he saw the replay on the balcony tv he would have been so concerned that the umpiring system had followed poor processes that he would immediately have stood up on his pulpit, extended his arm out from the balcony and recalled Adam Voges to the pavilion. I'm certain Mitch Marsh sitting behind Smith would have been furious with the umpiring too, saying "that's ****'n bull****. Hey skip I really feel that the decision-making process was inadequate and undermines the competitive nature of this cricket match, not to mention the Spirit of Cricket. Do the right thing skip." ...or words to that effect.

I am at a loss as to why the above did not happen.

 

[Redbacks]

We are better off with the umpires just not making close no ball calls based on the ICC response. Batsmen don't have enough time to respond regardless whether the arm is raised thus we can just let the deliveries go and have the 3rd umpire overturn mistakes if the wicket is taken.

 

[NUFAN]

Outlandish that we are all typing around the water coolers discussing the no-ball instead of Siddle's 3-fa to draw level up to 60th position on the all time Test wicket taking list with Saqlain and MacGill.

 

[social]

I think that we should do away with no-balls altogether *






* Would've save me the embarrassment of bowling a no. 11 batsmen with 4 consecutive no-balls in the final over of a match and being blamed (somewhat unjustly I thought) for our failure to win the match

In all seriousness, take no-balls out of the hands of the umpires. as it can only aid on-field decision making

 

[Spark]

I think that we should do away with no-balls altogether *






* Would've save me the embarrassment of bowling a no. 11 batsmen with 4 consecutive no-balls in the final over of a match and being blamed (somewhat unjustly I thought) for our failure to win the match

In all seriousness, take no-balls out of the hands of the umpires. as it can only aid on-field decision making

 

[Spikey]

umpires are already told not to call no-balls unless they are 100% certain, presumably to prevent exactly this

 

[TNT]

Surely the most surprising part of this whole debacle is the reaction from Steve Smith. I would have thought that as soon as he saw the replay on the balcony tv he would have been so concerned that the umpiring system had followed poor processes that he would immediately have stood up on his pulpit, extended his arm out from the balcony and recalled Adam Voges to the pavilion. I'm certain Mitch Marsh sitting behind Smith would have been furious with the umpiring too, saying "that's ****'n bull****. Hey skip I really feel that the decision-making process was inadequate and undermines the competitive nature of this cricket match, not to mention the Spirit of Cricket. Do the right thing skip." ...or words to that effect.

I am at a loss as to why the above did not happen.

You need to let it go. Only then will you find inner peace.

 

[straw man]

the river is everywhere

 

[Prince EWS]

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Surely the most surprising part of this whole debacle is the reaction from Steve Smith. I would have thought that as soon as he saw the replay on the balcony tv he would have been so concerned that the umpiring system had followed poor processes that he would immediately have stood up on his pulpit, extended his arm out from the balcony and recalled Adam Voges to the pavilion. I'm certain Mitch Marsh sitting behind Smith would have been furious with the umpiring too, saying "that's ****'n bull****. Hey skip I really feel that the decision-making process was inadequate and undermines the competitive nature of this cricket match, not to mention the Spirit of Cricket. Do the right thing skip." ...or words to that effect.

I am at a loss as to why the above did not happen.

Australian cricket logic

If the decision benefitted Australia, then it was a good decision.
If it did not benefit them, then it was a bad decision.

Nothing else matters.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Australian cricket logic

If the decision benefitted Australia, then it was a good decision.
If it did not benefit them, then it was a bad decision.

Nothing else matters.

Please present an essay as to why Kiwi cricket logic is any better.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Please present an essay as to why Kiwi cricket logic is any better.

Please do not feed the trolls

 

[cnerd123]

Please do not feed the trolls

But the trolls are so cute, how coud you not feed them

 

[91Jmay]

Please do not feed the trolls

We don't want you to starve to death

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Please present an essay as to why Kiwi cricket logic is any better.

Just look at the magnitude of the tantrum thrown when Mitchell Marsh was correctly given out and contrast that to the utter silence when it comes to things like needing to get Nathan Lyon or Adam Voges out twice.