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.
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.
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?
Riccardo
Guest
Jeez Liam, a bit of a mouthful. Respectfully, I think you'll find the change in culture within the team is exactly that, for the team. In that it works for the Blacks Caps, galvanisng them as a unit. It is part of the value system that has seen them have success over the last couple of seasons and is unlikely to be shelved. As a long time fan their slow climb from mediocrity has been welcome and whatever is behind that shift is welcome by me. It is not and has never been touted to be a barometer for the game, nor the teams that play it. That Australia or any other country play differently is actually not the point; I think you'll find most Black Caps fans have at least a grudging respect for the Australian Team even if this is not yet their best incarnation. I actually agree with you that the process was less than perfect but the clear fact remains Marsh was out.
Riccardo
Guest
To say nothing of the petulant histrionics from Starc when he dismissed Santner, Paul. Still, probably not the first time and definitely not the last...
Riccardo
Guest
Upon investigation of this incident over here Ronan it was reported that Henry's raising of the ball and the enquiry "How was that?" constituted an appeal that was endorsed by Ish Sodhi and Martin Guptill, if not the wicket keeper and other players.
Basil
Guest
most of these so called send offs (real or imaginary) are indeed pretty tame, yet Kiwis are still blathering and whining on about Haddin. I think the real reason he got under kiwi skin is because he had the gall to suggest this whole nice guy, spirit of the game pantomime might be just a little bit fake!!
Jerry
Guest
Elliott himself got a send off from Wade's predecessor in the final. And as far as send off's go, saying "Are we not playing caught and bowled then?" to a guy who's swearing about being given out (correctly) is pretty tame.
Basil
Guest
I'm not at all convinced Guptil got a sendoff, and even if he did, it does not logically imply that wade is not allowed to complain about the the present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Paul D
Roar Guru
That's ridiculous if Wade has said that. Clearly didn't see the part in the World Cup final where Haddin gave Guptill a serve, and Faulkner gave Grant Elliott a massive spray after getting them both out.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"Where does it say n the rules you must turn around and appeal at the umpire? There was a polite appeal, right decision made. " Interestingly, both the on-field umpires told match referee Chris Broad they did not see or hear an appeal from Matt Henry...surely an appeal has to gain the attention of one of the umpires to be valid - it is them you're appealing to after all.
Bobbo7
Guest
Where does it say n the rules you must turn around and appeal at the umpire? There was a polite appeal, right decision made. Umpires may have been influenced by the screen, but the question must be asked if this is a bad thing where the right result is made. This is an unusual type of wicket too. It was not an LBW so I don't think we are gong to see this happening very often.
Don Freo
Guest
There's 3 negatives in one sentence in the last para...and a "dis" in the second sentence of the same para. Could you decode it and repost?
Liam
Guest
And for the record, I see this decision in a grey area, because while there is should be no dispute about an appeal occurring, there are no rules governing the replays of a ball, or the umpire's using it to review a decision. Marsh was out, but were there no grey area - the reviews not allowed/permitted to play a role on the on-ground affairs - there would be no controversy.
Liam
Guest
"since when has McCullum been championed as a custodian of the game?" Rather a lot, since he turned NZ around, transforming his team around him into good sports all, decrying sledging for boorishness, and placing the spirit of cricket above all else. I don't actually agree with Ronan on this; I think McCullum has learnt somewhat from his actions as cited in the post above, and his decision to champion correctness on the cricket pitch is a great thing for the game. However, don't pretend that the collective hasn't decided that McCullum hasn't been spun as a custodian of the game. It's disingenuous at best.
SpongeBob
Guest
The only key piece of information is that the umpire thought it was not out, UNTIL he saw a replay on the big screen. This is the problem. Normally this doesn't happen and the guy who rushed one up will be very pleased of himself. NZ hardly appealed. They didn't use the DRS. The umpire was happy it wasn't out. * Queue replay * Suddenly crowd are into it, NZ are whinging their heads off. Umpire caves under pressure and reviews. Naturally the laws aren't written with technology in mind, that's just the part we need to address before it happens in a critical game. The NRL finds themselves in the same boat - they make the call like a knock on, home ground rushes to put up any replay of a mistake the opposition made, then suddenly the officials either either (a) are overturning a call they made purely because they saw a replay (b) sticking with the wrong call, up against a furious home team & 50,000 fans. No replay = no problems. I'm all for getting the right call, when the delivery method for that "right call" is hugely biased and sporadic that's when it's a problem. I certainly don't see other teams getting replays of all the Broncos mistakes replayed over + over for the officials to see when at Suncorp etc.
Sylvester
Guest
Henry was within his rights to mute the appeal if he wasn't sure whether it was out or not. Same as when a fielder isn't sure whether they've made a clean grab. The umpire should have checked. This is in no way a blight on McCullum or the Black Caps.
Sylvester
Guest
Is this any different to when batsmen started getting recalled when the umps upstairs noticed a front foot no ball?
Sylvester
Guest
Broadcasters replay every ball usually because there's time to kill while the bowler walks back to his mark.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"And Mathew Wade says last night “only a coward sledges people as they walk off”. Ergo, he thinks some of his past and present team-mates are cowards." This I agree with. The Aussies have quite often had a chat to opposition batsmen after they get them out so for Wade to complain about NZ doing that is ridiculous. Steve Smith also had a whinge about Kohli's send off in the T20s. Hypocritical stuff from him and Wade.
Sylvester
Guest
I was at the Cake Tin for game 2. They replayed pretty much every delivery while the bowler walked back to his mark - like they do on TV. It's pretty standard.
Brian
Guest
Yep maybe Henry was just hailing a cab.
Brian
Guest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxSktOgpqXM He puts his hand up and appeals since when do you need to turn around.