Australia v New Zealand, 3rd Test, Adelaide, 27 Nov - 1 Dec, 2015

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:

taipan wrote:So every umpire who gets a judgemental decision wrong should be hung out?

No. But an umpire who's had five minutes, countless TV replays, and all the technology available to him to make a decision...but still gets it horribly wrong, leaves them with no choice.

And as we said at the time some of the technology didn't show a thing. I am glad I don't work for you if you think that is the correct way to treat an employee.

Come on. Umpires have to be accountable for their decisions. Would it be better if they just quietly sack them with no explanation to anyone?

New Zealand Cricket made an official complaint to the ICC about the decision, so the ICC was obliged to investigate and then give their views. Obviously they weren't going to say that Llong did everything exactly right.

And I guess in terms of his contract Llong is not permitted to reply publicly?

A 3 part tweet on :The official account for all media releases by the International Cricket Council" ...no media release on their website

ICC has replied to correspondence from NZC relating to the Nathan Lyon DRS review in the 3rd Test.

ICC has reviewed the decision and acknowledged that it was incorrect.

ICC confirms the umpire followed the correct protocol, but made an incorrect judgment.

An ambiguous statement ...gutless

embee wrote:A 3 part tweet on :The official account for all media releases by the International Cricket Council" ...no media release on their website

ICC has replied to correspondence from NZC relating to the Nathan Lyon DRS review in the 3rd Test.

ICC has reviewed the decision and acknowledged that it was incorrect.

ICC confirms the umpire followed the correct protocol, but made an incorrect judgment.

An ambiguous statement ...gutless

So where does all the rest come from?

Changing the subject slightly, although hot spot clearly showed that Lyon hit the ball in this instance, I find it unusual that in the past 2 or 3 years hot spot marks seem to have become increasingly harder to spot or almost non-existent. Is there something to the vaseline line?

taipan wrote:So every umpire who gets a judgemental decision wrong should be hung out?

The ICC have been watching the IRB and picking up a few tips on how to show a bit of class.

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:A 3 part tweet on :The official account for all media releases by the International Cricket Council" ...no media release on their website

ICC has replied to correspondence from NZC relating to the Nathan Lyon DRS review in the 3rd Test.

ICC has reviewed the decision and acknowledged that it was incorrect.

ICC confirms the umpire followed the correct protocol, but made an incorrect judgment.

An ambiguous statement ...gutless

So where does all the rest come from?

Journalistic spackle

Llong should get gardening leave.

embee wrote:

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:A 3 part tweet on :The official account for all media releases by the International Cricket Council" ...no media release on their website

ICC has replied to correspondence from NZC relating to the Nathan Lyon DRS review in the 3rd Test.

ICC has reviewed the decision and acknowledged that it was incorrect.

ICC confirms the umpire followed the correct protocol, but made an incorrect judgment.

An ambiguous statement ...gutless

So where does all the rest come from?

Journalistic spackle

So the whole hotspot > snicko was made up?

that was from ICC's 2013 procedure for DRS ( not sure if still current) ...

I think that cricinfo misread/misinterpreted the explanation

"ESPNcricinfo has confirmed that 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."

Allardice's quotes, however, did not explain the protocol to be followed in the case of not-out decisions."

as hot spot did not show impact he could use snicko ...which showed nothing

And ICC confirmed that Llong followed the correct protocol.

Brendon McCullum expected to announce his international retirement early next year.

Snoozies will miss him. Well played Mukka.

I've got a feeling the Chris Cairns trial hit him pretty hard, especially now that his testimony has basically been ruled a lie by a jury.

A great entertainer.

Henry wrote:I've got a feeling the Chris Cairns trial hit him pretty hard, especially now that his testimony has basically been ruled a lie by a jury.

A great entertainer.

The judge instructed the jury that they must believe in 2 out of the 3 witnesses. I am guessing Vincent and his ex were the bad apples.

Yeah, well Vincent is a convicted cheat himself.

Henry wrote:Yeah, well Vincent is a convicted cheat himself.

And the wife was on the piss when she heard.

Apparently it was Steve Smith's decision to have the team masseuse as a sub fielder, because he wasn't happy with the quality of reserve fielders provided by South Australia. FFS, how bad must they have been if the masseuse was considered better??

Or is Smith just a clueless qunt?

Henry wrote:Apparently it was Steve Smith's decision to have the team masseuse as a sub fielder, because he wasn't happy with the quality of reserve fielders provided by South Australia. FFS, how bad must they have bee if the masseuse was considered better??

Or is Smith just a clueless qunt?

The jury is still out.

Henry wrote:Apparently it was Steve Smith's decision to have the team masseuse as a sub fielder, because he wasn't happy with the quality of reserve fielders provided by South Australia. FFS, how bad must they have bee if the masseuse was considered better??

Or is Smith just a clueless qunt?

Maybe Smith and the masseuse are close.

Baldwin had played second X1 cricket and he would practice with the team

It's not hard to see why Smith would prefer him to the SACAs