**Official** New Zealand v Australia

[Scallywag]

I sure that comment that was made was purely from a Daniel Vettori point of view. Surely you can't be suggesting Vettori normally gets decisions go his way..

What I said was when a decision goes against NZ its considered bad umpiring but when a decision goes their way its just evening things up, you know like bad decisions are OK if its goes NZ's way but they are ruining the game when they go against NZ.

 

[Somerset]

Don't know that there's been any proof that Clarke's wicket was a bad decision? Or is there?

Vincent wasn't particularly well forward but with the angle Clarke delivers the ball, it was definately missing the stumps. Did you see the decision?

 

[Somerset]

I saw the replay.. The more I saw it, the more I was pretty sure it would have taken leg. I meant did they track the path of the ball or something? Something more substantial than your opinion, I mean.

New Zealand doesn't have the feature England and Australian stations have where it tracks the ball and would give an accurate measure of whether it would hit or miss the stumps unfortunately. But from the naked eye, I highly doubt it would've hit.

 

[Scallywag]

Martyn's decision was wrong, I'm not denying that but it's obvious Australia get the majority of 50/50 calls.

.

Australia get the majority of 50/50 calls is all in your head because you only listen to things you want to believe like Woolmer when he's trying to come up with reasons for his teams poor performance.

If its so obvious then you must believe that the umpires are deliberately favoring the Australians or you must mean that its obvious to everybody except the umpires who are in the best position to judge these decisions.

 

[Somerset]

What I said was when a decision goes against NZ its considered bad umpiring but when a decision goes their way its just evening things up, you know like bad decisions are OK if its goes NZ's way but they are ruining the game when they go against NZ.

No one is disputing the Martyn decision was the wrong one - it was poor umpiring - but in the process it evened things up a little with the Australian's tendency to receive the majority of 50/50 calls.

 

[Mr Casson]

New Zealand doesn't have the feature England and Australian stations have where it tracks the ball and would give an accurate measure of whether it would hit or miss the stumps unfortunately. But from the naked eye, I highly doubt it would've hit.

Well it's a 50/50 call for mine... That's not enough evidence to chalk it up to the 'bad decisions' column.

Definitely enough for the 'Australia gets the better of the 50/50 decisions' column though, if that was what you were saying - in which case I agree.

 

[Somerset]

Australia get the majority of 50/50 calls is all in your head because you only listen to things you want to believe like Woolmer when he's trying to come up with reasons for his teams poor performance.

If its so obvious then you must believe that the umpires are deliberately favoring the Australians or you must mean that its obvious to everybody except the umpires who are in the best position to judge these decisions.

I may listen to the likes of Woolmer but the fact of the matter is that Australia do receive the majority. The umpires aren't deliberately favouring the Aussies but their intimidation must play a part as must their reputation. But I'm not an umpire, I wouldn't know how I would feel umpiring a match with the Australians.

 

[Scallywag]

No one is disputing the Martyn decision was the wrong one - it was poor umpiring - but in the process it evened things up a little with the Australian's tendency to receive the majority of 50/50 calls.

I dont think you know what you are talking about, can you name two series Australia have participated in that have given them a distinct advantage in the 50/50 decisions or have you just acted like a sheep and just repeated what most sore losers say about Australia.

 

[Somerset]

I dont think you know what you are talking about, can you name two series Australia have participated in that have given them a distinct advantage in the 50/50 decisions or have you just acted like a sheep and just repeated what most sore losers say about Australia.

I cannot give you two specific series because they don't have a distinct advantage, but after the decisions begin to add up, it makes the opposition's job much more difficult. The fact that even Australians are admitting that their side is prone to receiving 50/50 calls tells you something, anyway.

 

[Linda]

I really wish Bob Woolmer had kept his mouth shut in regards to bad decisions. No body took too much notice to who supposedly gets more bad/good decisions, and who was being favoured today and tomorrow and blah blah blah...
It all just sounds so sour grapes, whichever side its coming from.

Im itching to see that Warne delivery tonight. Sounds like a beauty, lol!

 

[Fiery]

Another example of why use of technology isn't a practical solution to disputable decisions. I wonder what Fiery thinks of this one...

The replay clearly created doubt because it looked like he had the ball in his hand but used the ground to force it to stay in there. Since the rules state that a catcher has to clearly be in control of the ball before it touches the ground, the third umpire could only give it not out, but it was far from conclusive in either direction.

LBW was pretty close in my view, but the right decision was made. I'd call it in the same category as the Vincent one yesterday, except this time the umpire got it right.

Spectacular performance by McGrath today, another trademark effort on a pitch with nothing in it. I've never seen him use reverse swing that well before, either.

I wasn't sure but when I lip-read Cumming say to Hayden he was "pretty sure" then I was happy with the decision as there was enough doubt even for Cumming himself to be uncertain. Now if he had said, "yep, I definitely caught it" it could have been a different story but I doubt Hayden would have walked anyway. Only St Gilly walks in the Aussie team doesn't he?

 

[Mister Wright]

I wasn't sure but when I lip-read Cumming say to Hayden he was "pretty sure" then I was happy with the decision as there was enough doubt even for Cumming himself to be uncertain. Now if he had said, "yep, I definitely caught it" it could have been a different story but I doubt Hayden would have walked anyway. Only St Gilly walks in the Aussie team doesn't he?

Gillespie & Kaspa too.

 

[Dasa]

Not easy to take is it......Now you know how the NZ and Pakistani Fans feel and why we've often refered to bad decisions recently. As i stated earlier IMO Martyn is a of the only Aussie batsmen that seems to get the short-end of the stick when it comes to decisions, Unlike Hayden, Langer and Gilchrist in particular

Umm... I'm not an Australia fan... rather, and Indian. I was complaining when NZ and Pakistan got a few bad decisions as well!

 

[Jnr.]

This has been a good match so far. NZ are still ahead.

It is a shame that there's all this bickering about the umpiring. Please put the matter to rest, these things happen.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Only St Gilly walks in the Aussie team doesn't he?

Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Katich all walked during the Indian series as well. Hayden, Langer and Ponting don't walk as far as I know, not sure about Martyn or Clarke or Warne.

 

[Ming]

I really wish Bob Woolmer had kept his mouth shut in regards to bad decisions. No body took too much notice to who supposedly gets more bad/good decisions, and who was being favoured today and tomorrow and blah blah blah...
It all just sounds so sour grapes, whichever side its coming from.

No actually.

Many people have been suggesting that opppositional teams against Australia have been given rough calls. The NZ Tour of Aussie in 2001/2 was an example, where Cairns trapped Langer plumb numerous times only to be given not out.

Somerset, you didn't see the game if you thought Lou Vincent was well forward to that delivery he got out to Michael Clarke.

 

[Mr Casson]

opppositional teams against Australia

Australia's opponents?

 

[Deja moo]

Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Katich all walked during the Indian series as well. Hayden, Langer and Ponting don't walk as far as I know, not sure about Martyn or Clarke or Warne.

Clarke doesnt walk, but then one cant expect a newbie to walk anyway ..

 

[Mister Wright]

Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Katich all walked during the Indian series as well. Hayden, Langer and Ponting don't walk as far as I know, not sure about Martyn or Clarke or Warne.

The day I see Langer walk, is the day I stop drinking alcohol. He walks off shaking his head when he has been caught behind after scoring 200. I have never seen anyone value their wicket, or hate getting out more then J.L.

 

[Blaze]

Australia get the majority of 50/50 calls is all in your head because you only listen to things you want to believe like Woolmer when he's trying to come up with reasons for his teams poor performance.

If its so obvious then you must believe that the umpires are deliberately favoring the Australians or you must mean that its obvious to everybody except the umpires who are in the best position to judge these decisions.

Not saying whether aus get the majourity of 50/50 calls or not.. but why would it bother you so much if they were proven to get the majourity of 50/50 calls?