Australia tour of New Zealand - Feb 2016

[Toby F]

Hoping Williamson gets his hundred. But not 101. A class above the rest of the NZ batting line up.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Dissent from the Aussies there, which DRS seems to provoke. No excuse though. Hope the match ref has a word.

Both appeals gone.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Not much luck going for the Aussies. But credit to the batters for their discipline.

[GarlicJam]

Dissent from the Aussies there, which DRS seems to provoke. No excuse though. Hope the match ref has a word.

Both appeals gone.

Bad enough from Smith, but it can be argued that he has the right as captain to question the ump on the decision/what happened, although I didn't hear what he said. Hazelwood was well wout of order though, and deserves sanction for that.


Ian Smith also deserves sanction for being a right tosser.

[Toby F]

You've obviously seen twice as much dissent as I have (though artfully edited). Sounds odd just going by cricinfo, but dissent should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

[Alviro Patterson]

Poor Richard Illingworth, he can't win can he?

[GarlicJam]

only 7 overs until they get their reviews back though. Both of the reviews they lost on were well worth undertaking.

I am not fully convince that Williamson DID nick that last one - he may well have, but it wasn't conclusive as he had already whacked his pad. Thirdie should have run through RTS as well, I thought.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Fair enough about Ian Smith. Never one to hold back on his indignation at anything non-Kiwi.

The skipper can discuss play with the umpire, but that was a bit of a tantrum from Steve Smith. Not intending to pick on the Aussies here. Cook is embarrassing in that respect. It's all a bit football.

[Arthur Crabtree]

only 7 overs until they get their reviews back though. Both of the reviews they lost on were well worth undertaking.

I am not fully convince that Williamson DID nick that last one - he may well have, but it wasn't conclusive as he had already whacked his pad. Thirdie should have run through RTS as well, I thought.

I'm not sure he hit it either. But given the doubt the decision stayed onfield. So they did the right thing.

Great ball though.

[GarlicJam]

You've obviously seen twice as much dissent as I have. Sounds odd just going by cricinfo, but dissent should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

**should I answer with "No, I haven't?**

Not sure I get your point, but mine was that I am unsure if Smith was showing dissent - maybe he was - but Hazelwood sure looked to be. As well as swearing with it.

A captain questioning an umpire isn't necesarily dissent.

[bigfluffylemon]

only 7 overs until they get their reviews back though. Both of the reviews they lost on were well worth undertaking.

I am not fully convince that Williamson DID nick that last one - he may well have, but it wasn't conclusive as he had already whacked his pad. Thirdie should have run through RTS as well, I thought.

It was at least as reasonable as the decision to give Lyon not out at Adelaide, probably more so. But yes, Third Umpire should have gone through the process more thoroughly.

The dissent is not on. If you refer the decision to the third ump, you really should respect that decision.

Only 76 runs in that session, but crucially, no wicket. The Kiwis may have had a bit of luck, but Australia dropped a couple. Proper test match cricket here. Australia are still hot favourites, and will probably continue to be even if NZ bat out the day - even if the Kiwis can get a big enough lead, they will probably run out of time to bowl Australia out.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Yeah. Appeals are returned.

Promises to be another fascinating session. I was going to have an early night as I'm feeling a bit ragged, but I'll do another hour.

[GarlicJam]

only 7 overs until they get their reviews back though. Both of the reviews they lost on were well worth undertaking.

I am not fully convince that Williamson DID nick that last one - he may well have, but it wasn't conclusive as he had already whacked his pad. Thirdie should have run through RTS as well, I thought.

I'm not sure he hit it either. But given the doubt the decision stayed onfield. So they did the right thing.

Great ball though.

If there was still doubt - after all, Thirdie was saying "No, he hasn't hit it" until one replay made him change his mind - surely a more forensic examination was warranted. As I have said, I thought a look at RTS was on the cards.

Also, if the Thirdie was sure that KW did hit it, why didn't he follow the path of the ball afterwards to see if it was caught?

[Toby F]

You've obviously seen twice as much dissent as I have. Sounds odd just going by cricinfo, but dissent should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

**should I answer with "No, I haven't?**

Not sure I get your point, but mine was that I am unsure if Smith was showing dissent - maybe he was - but Hazelwood sure looked to be. As well as swearing with it.

A captain questioning an umpire isn't necesarily dissent.

I was actually commenting on Arthur's original (now fixed) double quote, but you got one in before I finished. I should have linked them I guess. Since I only have cricinfo I was relying on Arthur's observation of dissent.

[GarlicJam]

The dissent is not on. If you refer the decision to the third ump, you really should respect that decision.

True. Although it must be hard if you "see" that the Thirdie didn't follow correct process.

But, as you say, dissent is not on.