The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Marsh decision outlines need for consistency in cricket

8th February, 2016
Advertisement
Mitch Marsh has played impressively in the One Day Cup. (Photo: AAP images).
Roar Guru
8th February, 2016
144
1727 Reads

Mitchell Marsh’s controversial wicket on Monday’s final ODI against New Zealand proved to be the turning point in the match, but the fact remains that it should not have been given.

Marsh’s dismissal was out, clearly, yet it was the manner in which it was given that has generated some controversy.

Australia, chasing 247 for victory, were 5-164 and the game hung in the balance. Marsh, on 41, clobbered the ball back into his boot, which ricocheted towards bowler Matt Henry, who clung onto the catch.

It was clear that Marsh hit the ball onto his foot, but only after it had been displayed on the big screen.

New Zealand did not appeal, they barely even asked, “how is that one, sir?”.

Henry turned and walked back to his mark, Marsh returned to his crease and the match went on. Or so it should have.

More cricket:
» Nevill the shock inclusion as Australia announce World T20 squad
» The Liebke Ratings: New Zealand vs Australia third ODI
» Has Brendon McCullum retired a tad too early?
» McCullum: Withdrawing appeal would have been ‘disrespectful’
» Watch: New Zealand retain Chappell-Hadlee Trophy amid controversy
» New Zealand vs Australia highlights: New Zealand take Chappell-Hadlee trophy
» Scorecard: New Zealand vs Australia third ODI

It was only after it had been displayed on the big screen that the crowd became interested, which in turn prompted umpire Ian Gould to go upstairs.

Advertisement

Now the argument could be made that the correct decision had been made. That’s a fair opinion, yet it lacks one key element – consistency.

Adam Milne earlier in the match had been given out lbw, yet he was not called back by the umpires, even though commentators knew that Milne was not out while he was still on the ground.

The same case can be said for David Warner, who in the first game of the Chappell-Hadlee series, was given out lbw to Trent Boult. The Australians did not review, and Warner had to walk off.

In both instances, the wrong decision was made. So why is it that in this case, it was so important that the right decision was made, even though there was no true appeal, and a review (from the umpires) was only brought about due to the big screen replay?

New Zealand would not have felt aggrieved if the ball had not been brought up on the big screen. There have been many occasions where a fielding team has not properly appealed for an edge, and it is due to the fielding team’s lack of appealing that the decision is not given.

Again, an argument may be pushed that New Zealand did in fact appeal, albeit half-heartedly. Yet the appeal was minimal at best, and did not seem like much of an appeal at all, rather an “oh, ah” situation.

The game cannot be influenced by a television screen and even through the introduction of the Decision Review System, an element of the umpire’s opinion comes into play.

Advertisement

The argument here is that there was little more than an appeal, and the decision was only influenced by the big screen. The correct decision should be made, yet cricket is quickly becoming a sport in which technology is taking over.

What is the point of having a review system when a team can simply look up at the big screen and base their decisions on that.

There needs to be some sort of consistency in the decision-making process, and if that is going to be the case then replays of every single ball that could be a wicket must be displayed. Because, now, a precedent has been set.

Make no mistake, Marsh’s wicket changed the game, and the series. Yes, the correct decision was made, but was it made in the correct way?

close