FootballNews

Well if he did walk it didn't last long, middled it back to the bowler and stood there. Then complained when he was given out.

Aussies now complaining as well that the umpires made the correct decision

Media milking this one for all they can get

Smith hardly raised an eyebrow immediate post match, but according to the ABC was 'incensed'.

Still think whingeing should be made an Olympic sport - Aussies to win gold every time.

I wish I had watched it.

Stitch This wrote:Media milking this one for all they can get

Smith hardly raised an eyebrow immediate post match, but according to the ABC was 'incensed'.

Still think whingeing should be made an Olympic sport - Aussies to win gold every time.

We've learned from the best, that being ex-pat poms.

End of, he was out and was given out, so not sure why the fuss.

Review system does need tweaking though. Perhaps 3rd umpire should have more power/input

Was the correct decision made ??? Was there an appeal ??
Rule 27.1
Umpire not to give batsman out without an appeal

Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made.

Rule 27.4
Appeal "How’s That?"

An appeal "How’s That?" covers all ways of being out.

Henry appealed, umpires never said not out, ball was still live therefore 'out' after more information is the correct decision. Did the kiwis have reviews left coz with the ball still live would they have come to the same conclusion the umpires did after hearing the crowd and seeing the screen and review it.

N5 1BH wrote:Henry appealed, umpires never said not out, ball was still live therefore 'out' after more information is the correct decision. Did the kiwis have reviews left coz with the ball still live would they have come to the same conclusion the umpires did after hearing the crowd and seeing the screen and review it.

The umpires have said they didn't hear an appeal.

Had they appealed and turned it down, it would have been too late for the review. 15 seconds I believe. The big screen is also not allowed to show the incident until after the time for a review has passed.

If Henry hadn't taken his mark to bowl again wouldn't an appeal for out to the umpires still be valid if the umpires had not yet given not out. If the umpires heard nothing then going for review must have been at their discretion after seeing the screen, if that’s the case it is controversial though still correct. Sucked in I suppose

N5 1BH wrote:If Henry hadn't taken his mark to bowl again wouldn't an appeal for out to the umpires still be valid if the umpires had not yet given not out. If the umpires heard nothing then going for review must have been at their discretion after seeing the screen, if that’s the case it is controversial though still correct. Sucked in I suppose

You can appeal up until the moment the bowler begins his run up for the next ball. I'm assuming up until "over" is called as well.

The umpires must have called for an "umpire review" when McCullum "appealed" when talking to the umpire.

God is an Englishman wrote:

N5 1BH wrote:Henry appealed, umpires never said not out, ball was still live therefore 'out' after more information is the correct decision. Did the kiwis have reviews left coz with the ball still live would they have come to the same conclusion the umpires did after hearing the crowd and seeing the screen and review it.

The umpires have said they didn't hear an appeal.

Had they appealed and turned it down, it would have been too late for the review. 15 seconds I believe. The big screen is also not allowed to show the incident until after the time for a review has passed.

So in the umpires mind there was no appeal...

Brendon McCullum always preaching about spirit of the game

bloodypassit wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

N5 1BH wrote:Henry appealed, umpires never said not out, ball was still live therefore 'out' after more information is the correct decision. Did the kiwis have reviews left coz with the ball still live would they have come to the same conclusion the umpires did after hearing the crowd and seeing the screen and review it.

The umpires have said they didn't hear an appeal.

Had they appealed and turned it down, it would have been too late for the review. 15 seconds I believe. The big screen is also not allowed to show the incident until after the time for a review has passed.

So in the umpires mind there was no appeal...

Brendon McCullum always preaching about spirit of the game

That's what the umpires have said.

How is it against the spirit of the game?

The spirit of the game would have been the Aussie bloke walking when he was caught

God is an Englishman wrote:The spirit of the game would have been the Aussie bloke walking when he was caught

Could start a new trend though. Bowler not sure but keeps quiet, stops to do up his laces, slow walk back to his mark all while facing the screen

N5 1BH wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:The spirit of the game would have been the Aussie bloke walking when he was caught

Could start a new trend though. Bowler not sure but keeps quiet, stops to do up his laces, slow walk back to his mark all while facing the screen

Which is why I think they will change it so that replays can't be shown until the next ball has been bowled. OR as an umpire friend of mine said, you could change competition regulations so that an appeal must be made within a certain time limit.

The bottom line with this one though is, the correct decision was made and the aussies are whingeing about it. I even had death threats from friends of a friend for suggesting the correct decision was made.

God is an Englishman wrote:The spirit of the game would have been the Aussie bloke walking when he was caught

'The spirit of the game' is a load of hogwash used as an argument by do-gooders when something doesn't go their way.

If the batsman doesn't want to walk (or wants to wait for the umpire to make the decision) then he's entitled to.
Stuart Broad did it, most aussies do it, it's a non-issue for me.
Up to the umpires to get it right.

My beef is when there's a contentious catch, the umpire has given it out, but the batsman argues and wants it to go to the 3rd umpire for confirmation.
If the umpire gives you out - you're out!

NZ 5/51 at drinks first session.

Could be another short test match on a "minefield"

Frank Costanza wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:The spirit of the game would have been the Aussie bloke walking when he was caught

'The spirit of the game' is a load of hogwash used as an argument by do-gooders when something doesn't go their way.

If the batsman doesn't want to walk (or wants to wait for the umpire to make the decision) then he's entitled to.
Stuart Broad did it, most aussies do it, it's a non-issue for me.
Up to the umpires to get it right.

My beef is when there's a contentious catch, the umpire has given it out, but the batsman argues and wants it to go to the 3rd umpire for confirmation.
If the umpire gives you out - you're out!

Agree with the not walking part, I could only be very loosely called a batsman but have never walked and wouldn't expect anyone else to. Unfortunately the introduction of the review system means the umpires decision is no longer final or unchallenged and is gradually being downgraded, that is when they actually give a decision now a days

Frank Costanza wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:The spirit of the game would have been the Aussie bloke walking when he was caught

'The spirit of the game' is a load of hogwash used as an argument by do-gooders when something doesn't go their way.

If the batsman doesn't want to walk (or wants to wait for the umpire to make the decision) then he's entitled to.
Stuart Broad did it, most aussies do it, it's a non-issue for me.
Up to the umpires to get it right.

My beef is when there's a contentious catch, the umpire has given it out, but the batsman argues and wants it to go to the 3rd umpire for confirmation.
If the umpire gives you out - you're out!

I always walk, everyone should always walk.

Bomber wrote:NZ 5/51 at drinks first session.

Could be another short test match on a "minefield"

NZ 6/97 now.

7/124

God is an Englishman wrote:

Frank Costanza wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:The spirit of the game would have been the Aussie bloke walking when he was caught

'The spirit of the game' is a load of hogwash used as an argument by do-gooders when something doesn't go their way.

If the batsman doesn't want to walk (or wants to wait for the umpire to make the decision) then he's entitled to.
Stuart Broad did it, most aussies do it, it's a non-issue for me.
Up to the umpires to get it right.

My beef is when there's a contentious catch, the umpire has given it out, but the batsman argues and wants it to go to the 3rd umpire for confirmation.
If the umpire gives you out - you're out!

I always walk, everyone should always walk.

I can respect that - I don't agree with it but it's your view

All out 183.

Hope we can make at least 250 on that deck.

Bomber wrote:All out 183.

Hope we can make at least 250 on that deck.

Geez nice deck to bowl , beats the old hard wickets in Para Districts Cricket Association.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Frank Costanza wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:The spirit of the game would have been the Aussie bloke walking when he was caught

'The spirit of the game' is a load of hogwash used as an argument by do-gooders when something doesn't go their way.

If the batsman doesn't want to walk (or wants to wait for the umpire to make the decision) then he's entitled to.
Stuart Broad did it, most aussies do it, it's a non-issue for me.
Up to the umpires to get it right.

My beef is when there's a contentious catch, the umpire has given it out, but the batsman argues and wants it to go to the 3rd umpire for confirmation.
If the umpire gives you out - you're out!

I always walk, everyone should always walk.

I walk too, down the pitch to do a bit of gardening

ozzie owl wrote:

Bomber wrote:All out 183.

Hope we can make at least 250 on that deck.

Geez nice deck to bowl , beats the old hard wickets in Para Districts Cricket Association.

Hard wickets must be like playing football on astroturf. Completely bottle of shiraz stupid.

Voges bowled off a no ball but replays show it wasnt a no bowl .....

bloodypassit wrote:Voges bowled off a no ball but replays show it wasnt a no bowl .....

Gotta love pommy umps.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Frank Costanza wrote: 'The spirit of the game' is a load of hogwash used as an argument by do-gooders when something doesn't go their way.

If the batsman doesn't want to walk (or wants to wait for the umpire to make the decision) then he's entitled to.
Stuart Broad did it, most aussies do it, it's a non-issue for me.
Up to the umpires to get it right.

My beef is when there's a contentious catch, the umpire has given it out, but the batsman argues and wants it to go to the 3rd umpire for confirmation.
If the umpire gives you out - you're out!

I always walk, everyone should always walk.

In the Voges case when you get back to the changing rooms a couple of balls later and see it was clearly a very bad mistake by the umpire and that you should be out. Do you retire in the spirit of the game or play on ?

N5 1BH wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Frank Costanza wrote: 'The spirit of the game' is a load of hogwash used as an argument by do-gooders when something doesn't go their way.

If the batsman doesn't want to walk (or wants to wait for the umpire to make the decision) then he's entitled to.
Stuart Broad did it, most aussies do it, it's a non-issue for me.
Up to the umpires to get it right.

My beef is when there's a contentious catch, the umpire has given it out, but the batsman argues and wants it to go to the 3rd umpire for confirmation.
If the umpire gives you out - you're out!

I always walk, everyone should always walk.

In the Voges case when you get back to the changing rooms a couple of balls later and see it was clearly a very bad mistake by the umpire and that you should be out. Do you retire in the spirit of the game or play on ?

Of course not, a batsmen is in no position to tell if it's a no ball.

1-0 to us.