If all of Test cricket’s wrong umpiring decisions were compiled in a book, it would make JJR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy look like a disposable airport novel.
Bad calls are the way of the game, and will continue to be so, for as long as decisions are subjective and remain at the whim of human umpires.
For the most part fans and players cop whatever comes there way, knowing (or hoping) that over time, things even themselves out. But not all bad calls are born equal, and some, such as Nigel Llong’s inexplicable effort on Saturday, have a disproportionate impact on a match.
History will mark cricket’s first day-night Test match as a resounding success – partly because of a tense finish and partly because it was refreshing to see the bowlers from both sides enjoy favourable conditions, after bashing their heads against brick roads in Brisbane and Perth.
Daily crowds in excess of 40,000 suggest that Test cricket, when packaged correctly, on a nicely prepared surface, featuring two sides who play positively, and are evenly matched, is alive and well. Whatever the pre-match concerns, we will see more of this in the future and so it should be.
Australia finish the series 2-0 victors and on the balance of play, particularly the Brisbane hammering, they are worthy victors. It is hardly their fault New Zealand arrived in no fit condition for five-day Test cricket, and all credit to David Warner and Usman Khawaja for taking full advantage.
Importantly, despite being headed on the first innings in Perth, Australia never remotely came close to being in a losing position, and any fanciful notions of New Zealand blazing to an unlikely fifth day win were always dependent on a generous declaration from Steve Smith which was never a prospect.
The prospect of a tighter game in Adelaide always seemed likely, and so it proved. New Zealand’s bowling was improving, and the pink ball in Test match conditions was new territory for all concerned.
Two more things happened to swing the game in New Zealand’s favour – Brendon McCullum finally won a toss, and Mitchell Starc, Australia’s chief destroyer, pulled up lame with a foot fracture.
That the Black Caps weren’t good enough to take advantage, despite the intervention of Llong, will be a source of irritating frustration for them for years to come.
It isn’t hard to imagine all of their batsmen replaying their second innings, collectively finding another 50 runs or so, which would have, in all likelihood, won them the match.
But the elephant in the room is that those 50 runs, or perhaps even 84 runs, were already in their keeping, if not for the unfortunate Llong, and his unilateral decision to disregard hotspot technology.
Australian fans were quick to get onto the front foot yesterday, with Ronan O’Connell’s article making the point that the DRS controversy should not disguise inept tactics and execution by the Kiwis following the incident.
One could perhaps more accurately make the point that the Kiwis’ inept play should not disguise the failure of the umpire.
Undoubtedly the Kiwis dropped their bundle, but this conveniently sidesteps the key point – anything that happened after the incident was a ‘Sliding Doors’ moment. Yes New Zealand shouldn’t have allowed Nathan Lyon, Peter Nevill and Mitchell Starc to add another 106 runs, but why should they have had to get Lyon out twice?
There are suggestions that at the time of the incident that Starc was not in fact padded up. If so, there’s an 84-run lead to New Zealand right there.
Even if Starc had rushed to put a shirt and pads on, what would the outcome have been? A lead less than 84? Probably. Or perhaps a 24-run lead to Australia? With a tail-ender unable to run properly between the wickets? Only the most partisan of Australian fans would believe that.
Just like in Hobart in 2011 this was one of those Test matches where scores in the vicinity of 200 or so were the going rate. A low scoring affair where mistakes by players or umpires would be magnified in terms of their impact on the result. Context.
Naysayers will duly roll out their counter arguments. Dave Warner was out to a no-ball. McCullum deserves everything he gets because of naïve use of DRS, or for bowling Mark Craig at Starc, or for projecting himself as international cricket’s saint when he isn’t the messiah but merely just a naughty boy. Take your pick.
All of which are either 50/50 calls or matters which may influence a game, but which have no quantitative impact – like Llong’s call did.
Just in case anyone is in any doubt, this was not a marginal decision or a moment in time which unluckily intruded on the game. This was the game. All of the other arguments, while true in themselves, are frankly irrelevant.
One irony is that DRS, which has copped plenty of criticism since its inception, was not actually at fault here. The tools were available for Llong to make the correct call – he simply chose to ignore them.
Take your pick – the ball deviated and changed trajectory on the front-on slo-mo. Front-on hot-spot showed a mark on bat and the ball as well, and side-on hot spot completed the trifecta, with a clearly visible mark on the bat.
Yet all Llong could muster was a lame comment that, yes there was a mark on the bat, but it “could have come from anywhere”. Yes Nigel, like the bat.
Interestingly, Nathan Lyon’s role in all of this has snuck well below the radar. In the past there were two schools of batsmen, those who walked and those who didn’t.
To which we can now add a third category – those who walk, but very slowly, and only part of the way to the boundary, just in case the umpire loses his senses and decides to give him not out.
Technology has served to take the initiative away from the players. Even more so than in the past they are entitled to stand their ground and let the officials, aided by the technology, make decisions. That is their very purpose. But if the organ grinder turns out to be a monkey then, no matter what the process, it’s looney tunes time.
Australian fans should feel well satisfied securing a series win with a new side which still has obvious room for improvement. Josh Hazlewood in particular took on the task of senior strike bowler at short notice, and delivered in spades.
Peter Nevill is a winner, Khawaja is to come back in, and Mitchell Marsh will eventually score runs to match his bowling efforts.
But they should also take a few moments to consider how they would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. If Nathan Lyon was, for example, Chris Broad.
Perhaps more than any other game cricket, in all of its ebbs and flows, is about context. Batsmen who score triple centuries in one game struggle to get it off the square in the next.
Take the win by all means, but acknowledge the context. And the next time you see Nigel Llong in a bar, as you slap him on the back and buy him a drink, say “sorry, did I make a mark on your shirt Nigel?” And laugh as he says, “no, it could be anything.”
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
The ICC general manager, Geoff Allardice, talked about it when Real Time Snicko was introduced. It's not in the laws of the game it's simply based on the relative merits of the two systems and he conveyed the ICC view to the umpires in 2013. Hotspot is more reliable than RTS even though RTS is more reliable than the previous versions of Snicko. The original interview is referenced here http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-new-zealand-2015-16/content/story/945583.html . While he doesn't specifically talk about when a batsman is given not out, he mainly talks about when he has been given out and confirmation, it must be a similar process or the whole system becomes ridiculous. In Nov 13 Allardice spent two days briefing the players and umpires on how the technology was to be used. NZ seem to be basing their complaint on the protocols he outlined then.
Jacko
Guest
Thanks Allanthus, finally an article which states it like it is. Its real funny that Ronan the Expert has to come on your article and defended his badly written inaccurate articles. You must have hit a tender spot there. As a NZ supporter I don't EXPECT to win in cricket against Aus but I do however expect the officialdom to get things right and I do expect writers to write about what we all saw. Your perspective is spot on Every person in the commentary team or any ex cricketer interviewed on the sports channels agree that a terrible decision cost NZ the last test but somehow people like Ronan still see it differently. And lets face it, Lyons could still have been out LBW as they never even looked at the correct delivery on that one. It was a massive error which is not possible to change now but to have people like Ronan the EXPERT attempting to justify it and rubbing it in our faces with lies is just too much. Keep up the good work.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Cheers Sheek. I was once umpiring in a club match, there was a noise as the batsman fended at the ball, I instinctively put my finger up for ct behind, he glared straight back down the pitch as if to say, you idiot what are you doing, I noticed that there was no appeal or reaction from anyone on the fielding side, so immediately put my finger back down. Nobody noticed or said a word and play carried on as if nothing had happened. Needless to say any ambition I might have had for an umpiring career was squashed there and then.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Now there's an idea ZZ - punt the 3rd umpire altogether, save some $ and just replay all referrals on the big screen and just go on the crowd reaction….
Blades
Guest
Are you aware that Cricket Australia asked the ICC for explanation on Khawaja's dismissal in the 2013 Ashes? I don't think it's wrong for New Zealand Cricket to do the same for Lyon's non-dismissal.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
The thing is, the decision wasn't plainly wrong to everyone - certainly not to Nigel Llong, and he is the only professional umpire of the lot of us so perhaps that should say something. Because all the commentators went off, everyone assumes it's unanimous. The entire crowd, for one, saw nothing on Snicko on the screens and cheered because we were happy that it this was a crucial enough absence of evidence that it couldn't result in an overturn of the on-field umpire's decision.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Well, yes, but that's only logical isn't it? My view is that a player, coach or member of team management complaining about the umpiring to the media is unprofessional; the commentators carrying on about it so incessantly on air is terrible. It shows a massive amount of disrespect for the umpires and it's basically just hijacking the airwaves to broadcast your own wounded opinions to the world. It totally spoils it for anyone who just want to get on with the game while it's there and save discussing the controversy for the internet and the media. To be fair, you were the one bring up the Stuart Broad non-dismissal in the article at the end, and all I wanted to say was that the Aussie carrying on at the time was very poor, but that I also think that by the time we got to the home summer, it was still stupid and a bit bogan, but it was mostly pantomime and send-up rather than some kind of smarting, bitter sore point. That's my impression anyway, take it or leave it. As for my general assessment of how Australian sportspeople - in cricket and in other sports too - react to tough luck like that, I stand by that. It doesn't go for all situations - Broadgate being an example - but in general I think Aussies are often good at keeping their mouths shut and getting on with it. For instance, in the gold medal netball match in the 2010 Commonwealth Games, Australia got a dodgy call in the last minute - the captain, McMahon, was called for breaking (crossing before the centre pass whistle) after being shoved in the back by the NZ goal defense. The GD's actions were par for the course, defenders getting away with as much as they can is part of the game, but unluckily the umpire happened to miss one at a crucial moment, and NZ went on to use that possession to score the winning goal. When the interviewer asked McMahon at the end of the game what happened, she just said, "I broke." As far as she was concerned, she was to close to the line and she gave the GD the opportunity to push her. Similarly, Shaun Marsh was Mankaded in a grade match when he was 14 and when he complained to his father about it after the match, his father just told him, "Next time, stay in your crease." It's the premise that you can't control what the opposition or the umpires do, but you can do your best to beat them, which means not allowing them the chance to do it.
Maggie
Guest
No, not much to do with anything. But I did laugh!
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Well said.
sheek
Roar Guru
I guess this following story doesn't have much to do with anything other than to point out that Nathan Lyon can stand his ground, he can walk, or he can change his mind, linger, or come back to the wicket. With the amount of time it takes for some decisions to be clarified these days, the batsman might have enough time to do all of the above. Anyway, way back in 1971/72, during a Sheffield Shield match between WA & Queensland at the WACA, WA opener Graeme Watson (& occasional test player) made a wonderful 145. He hit at a particular ball & missed, then started walking towards the dressing room, convinced he had edged the ball to the keeper. No-one appealed & everyone, fieldsmen, umpires & his batting partner, all gawked in stunned silence at him as he just kept walking. The umpires had no alternative but to record his dismissal, 'retired out'.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
That was a very gripping narrative Zim Zam. It reminded me of that movie Apollo 13 with Tom Hanks. I think we can make a movie out of this. Instead of "Houston we have a problem" it could be "There's a mark on the bat, but that could come from anywhere," then cue the creepy music
nanda
Guest
I agree. More clarity is needed. However in all this discussion on LLong, one thing that is not being pointed out is that technology is clearly lagging. As has been pointed out, Lyon was down the wicket and he played the shot with his arms outstretched. So he was clearly more than a couple of feet from the stump mic. It is not always that Snicks are about caught behind. Sweeps and possibly front foot pull shots are frequent played where the ball may graze the bat and the take the shoulder before going for a catch. Is there technology there which will capture even minor nics 4 - 5 feet from the stumps. If RTS is to be a viable tool then the technology may also have to be upgraded.
Mitcher
Guest
Found the Cricinfo link. Great yarn. And yes, I could understand a little lingering bitterness at The Don being let off the hook. Cheers for that.
Maggie
Guest
I read the list of points as neither a case of 'and' or 'or'; rather that it is a list of technologies that can be used to assist the third umpire answer the question (in this case, "did Lyon hit the ball?") with "a high degree of confidence". Llong clearly stated that he could not say that Lyon had definitely hit the ball and that he could not find conclusive evidence. The quote from 2013 is interesting, although it relates to a situation where the batsman has already been given out, where hotspot would be enough to confirm the on-field decision. The Lyon case is more problematic as the third umpire needed to have a high degree of confidence that the on field decision should be overturned. It certainly would be helpful if as a result of this controversy the ICC makes clear the appropriate protocols and procedures to be used by the third umpire.
nanda
Guest
Without sounding legalistic, is the condition to the points mentioned above "OR", or "AND". If it is AND then more than one condition should be checked. If it is "OR" then any one would suffice. Cricinfo seems to suggest that the rules were not accuratly followed. And I quote " umpires make their deliberations under instructions that Real-time Snicko (RTS) is only to be used if Hot Spot does not show a mark. "If the umpire gives it out [and it is reviewed], the third umpire will look at the spin-vision replay to start with, then he'll go to Hot Spot," Geoff Allardice, the ICC head of cricket operations, had said when explaining the introduction of RTS in 2013. "If there's a mark on Hot Spot he'll go straight to out. That's his conclusive evidence straight away. The only time Snicko will be used is if there's no mark on Hot Spot.". So may be the rules were not followed. Not sure though...
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Is Heal's response the only "professional" one ZZ because it just happens to be the one which coincides with your view? We have already seen how the Aussie fans react when the shoe is on the other foot. Go back and trawl through the reaction to the Broad non-dismissal and say there is no hypocrisy in the comments to this incident. (Which is not what this article is about, but seeing as how you bought it up…) As for Darren Lehmann, he called Broad a "blatant cheat". But that's ok because because it was just about amusement and tactics, and creating a pantomime villain? Not sure you're heading down a credible path there ZZ, rewriting history...
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Ok, so I've rewatched the decision and really, I reckon Llong's copping a pretty harsh deal. I don't think he could do anything different based on what he had in front of him and the process he had to follow. You couldn't overturn a not-out decision based on the front-on replay - the ball does nothing radical and it's not a conclusive enough angle. Add to that, there's absolutely nothing on RTS. All he's got in favour of an overturn is a light grey mark on the bat, which has for some reason created no spike on snicko, no noise on stump mike, and no clear deflection. So he has one piece of evidence that suggests Lyon may have hit the ball, but he's got nothing to back it up with. If he was upholding a decision, maybe that would have been just enough, but since he's overturning a decision, it's not. He rewatches everything he has again, and then he says to 'Rob', who I presume is the tech guy showing him replays, "I can't definitely say he's hit this. I'm pretty sure - I've got no convincing evidence that he has hit this ball. ... Yeah, I've been to legside, but I'm not sure - I can't find it because it's out of my screen as it comes around. Show me ball tracking ... Ok, so it's not an LBW ... Just take me back to that legside, I just want to check - I'm not sure where that hot-spot's come from, whether it's a backflash or not ..." He asks one of the onfield umpires, "Did you get two noises down there?" but you can't hear the reply. He goes over the legside hotspot again, and then he goes to the onfield umpire and says, "Ravi, I've got no conclusive evidence about this. I've looked at everyhting I've got, I can't find anything to say he's definitely hit this. No RTS. There's a mark on the bat, but that could come from anywhere - could come from a flash - so give it not out. Stay with your original not-out." At the end of the day, it's really not that bad, and if we're returning to the original purpose of the DRS, you can't say the original call was a howler given neither the onfield umpire, nor the stump mike, nor snicko, nor the third umpire could hear a nick.
Clark
Guest
Makes perfect sense. I see NZ has laid a complaint to the ICC about Nigel Llongs inappropriate process in reviewing the decision. Where Hotspot should have taken 1st priority over snick every time. There was a blatant spot on the correct side of the bat where it could have only been the ball hitting the bat. Should have been overturned right there and then
AlanKC
Guest
Hi Lindsay, You are repeatedly claiming that hotspot takes precedence over snicko but I can find no reference to the priority that they take in teh trird umpire's deliberations. Can you please post the link to the information you are relying on for your assertion?
Maggie
Guest
As I've queried above, I am curious about the source of your statement that hotspot takes precedence over snicko?