A sad day for the game of cricket

of course the Australian fans were so even minded over the broad non walk -not.

"Brett I suppose the difference is that the Aussie fans have been saying the Lyon decision was patently wrong and leaving it at that." Personally I haven't seen too many Aussie fans saying the Lyon decision was patently wrong and leaving it at that. Most of them have been defending the decision and saying the technology did not provide sufficient evidence to provide an "Out" decision. As far as the rest of your comments every country has had their day in the sun in proclaiming that the opposition team has cheated, pitches have been doctored and the umpires are biased. It is part of the game called cricket.

..."claiming visiting sides constantly are che@ted out of victories in Australia...". Ronan, to be fair Spiro has opined on these pages that every 50/50 call went Australia's way, and you can add in a couple of saw-offs from Mr Llong. I'm not sure sides are "che@ted" out of victory over there but it certainly appears to be a hard place to succeed, even when you're on top. Maybe you should ask previous visiting internationals what they thought of Darrell Hair. Saying Australian fans are just leaving it at that is probably inaccurate too. A lot on these boards are rubbing our noses in it, claiming moral superiority, probably the same ones who have clamoured on this site that Owens robbed them of the World Cup.

Brett I suppose the difference is that the Aussie fans have been saying the Lyon decision was patently wrong and leaving it at that. Whereas if you look at story comments on cricinfo or stuff.co.nz there are many NZ fans variously calling Lyon a cheat, claiming Llong conspired to rob NZ, claiming visiting sides constantly are cheated out of victories in Australia, claiming this DRS decision is another black mark against the Australian team etc etc.

Hmmm... I wonder how many Aussie fans would have just shrugged their shoulders and walked away had the boot been on the other foot. Tim Southee being given not out with New Zealand trailing by 80 runs and then eventually converting that into a 2o plus lead... and winning the Test by 3 wickets and depriving Steve Smith of his first home series win. Guess Ronan, you would have surely told your Aussie friends to not go overboard and just put up with it. Who knows, even had Southee been given out, Trent Boult might have struck a hundred... right? Harsh reality is this.. An incompetent umpire changed the material outcome of the series. A drawn 1-1 series became 2-0 in favour of the home team. More importantly... Now that ICC has officially admitted to a series deciding howler, why not schedule a rematch or just declare the series to be drawn? It was a mistake to allow the event to transpire. Its criminal to acknowledge it and not do something about it. Test match cricket is fighting for survival. The best players, both past and present, still regard Test Match cricket to be the true test of their cricketing mettle. For every 25 ODIs played, there is one Test match played. So a rematch or a drawn series declaration should be seriously considered.

As a lifelong New Zealand supporter, I have to say that some of us Kiwis are not up in arms about this incident. The TV umpire may have got it wrong, but that's cricket and clearly the technology doesn't provide humans with all of the answers. Sure, New Zealand may have taken a dominant position in the test, but we weren't good enough to get the win, and NZ batted poorly in the second dig. Besides, we have a home series to get some revenge - and more importantly - we have to perform!

I really hope Gazebo Tongue was firmly pressed up against his cheek when he wrote this article. Surely this is a pi&s take?

He was giving not out and no snicko, i'd say anything after that is not conclusive. Don't blame the ump for a technical mistake, it's going to happen occasionally, if he was given out he would have most likely stayed out

Thanks for that correction Brett to a petty point scoring comment. Singling out one group on this is quite poor. It was an interesting decision but I can live with it due to no snicko. Like Broad not walking, a gross over reaction to the event. Unfortunately this may become the new underarm moment brought up adnauseum when someone wants to take the moral high ground. Just like in the rugby, those arguments bore me.

As far as the decision goes I think he was out and that it was a turning point in the game. But Lyon shouldn't be carrying the can here; he actually batted superbly What is conveniently overlooked is that the Black Caps again showed their inability with the blade to set a total; what they set was meagre. Worse though, our bowling unit has struggled to close innings out; this is not the first time. And it has cost us. We miss Bond's coaching as opposed to that of newly installed Mascarenas. Some average decision-making from the captain didn't help. Bowling spinners at Starc just defies belief. Hit his feet with yorkers, interspersed with short balls. This is not rocket science. Someone on these boards said recently that this set-back represented an opportunity for the Black Caps to show how they overcame adversity. Decisions like this will happen again. There is a lesson to be learned here.

The bat was probably as far from snicko as it can get at contact. I agree its absence may have been a consideration in Llong's process but using it as an excuse in itself for allowing Lyon to bat on is just inaccurate.

Finally someone who doesn't think Lyon walked. If he walked it wouldn't have been reviewed. He, like a lot of people watching, assumed he was about to be given out so why stick around

Have to say I was thinking of writing something similar...

There are a lot of moral high-ground campaigning Australian fans doing exactly the same thing..

There have been a lot of NZ fans who have lost it over this decision and made fools of themselves.

Oh good grief....... :mad: Lyon only started walking off because of what Hotspot showed - he expected to be given out!! Rant all you want about the decision, and how some pretty solid evidence was ignored by the 3rd Umpire, Gazbo, but don't unload on Nathan Lyon when he quite clearly did nothing wrong at any point along the way. Proof that people will be offended by anything. Grinder, meet axe.

Is this a comment lifted from another place and turned into an article? It doesn't offer much

Snicko showed nothing... Lyon was given not out by controlling umpire Lyon was given not out by 3rd Umpire

*cough* "Article" This piece is poorly constructed, consisting of a number of one sentence paragraphs, very little thought or analysis and certainly no new thinking, not to mention the plain inaccuracies. Publishing this damages The Roar more than it helps.

"There was conclusive evidence that Lyon had hit the ball with Hot Shot and Snicko verifying this" Incorrect. Hot spot showed something, but Snicko didn't show anything hence the confusion from Llong. On top of that, the on field umpire said it was "not out".