ICC match referee Chris Broad has described the Adam Voges 'non no-ball' incident on day one of the first Trans-Tasman Test as "clearly embarrassing" for the umpire at the centre of the controversy, Englishman Richard Illingworth.
Voges was given a life when on seven during Australia's first innings in Wellington, when he was clean bowled by Doug Bracewell only for Illingworth to call a no-ball.
Replays indicated he was mistaken, and Voges went on to make a match-winning 239.
— cricket.com.au (@CricketAus) February 12, 2016
"Unfortunately Richard was distraught afterwards when he realised that it wasn’t a no-ball," Broad told News Corp.
"I think when anyone is proved wrong in any decision that they make it’s clearly embarrassing at the time.
"The problem is that when an umpire calls a no-ball, you can’t change that decision because under the laws a batsman may change his shot when the no-ball is called. It was called – that’s the end of the matter."
Black Caps coach Mike Hesson acknowledged there was little that could be done about the decision but said technology had the potential to play a greater role in the process.
"The more decisions right, the better," Hesson said on Tuesday. "Players, spectators, coaches just want as many correct decisions made as possible. If that's going from 85 to 95 (per cent), so be it.
"If we can use more technology to do that then decisions like that become less influential.
"It's something the ICC are aware of and (it) will be discussed.
Quick Single: NZ want greener pitch in Christchurch
"We're kidding ourselves if we ever think we'll get a 100 per cent proof system, no matter what it is. That's the nature of the game we play.
"We discussed (the decision) with Chris Broad after the game, as you do, but it became apparent very quickly there's not a lot that can be done about it.
"We move on."
The incident has had reverberations either side of the Tasman, with former Australia opener Chris Rogers labelling it "horrific" on Optus Sport's Across the Ditch.
"Horrific, that's how I'd describe it," Rogers said. "I don't understand it. Why can we not get these decisions right?
"There's enough time for the third umpire to change the decision.
Quick Single: Aussie foursome achieve career-high rankings
"New Zealand have done nothing wrong there, they shouldn't be penalised.
"We keep seeing these incidents happen, why can we not embrace technology and get it right every time?"
Broad said that while Illingworth was looking to get on with business as usual, it remained to be seen whether a rule change would be considered.
"Richard is a Yorkshireman, he shrugs his shoulders and gets on with it," he said. "I’m constantly amazed at how the umpires, when they do make their occasional errors, are able to recover from it.
"What can you do? Change the laws? I don’t know, possibly.
"But under the current laws and playing conditions it’s what it is and players as well as spectators and media and other officials have just got to go by what is done on the day."
On Saturday, an ICC spokesperson told cricket.com.au that the no-ball ruling would again be up for discussion when the governing body next convened on such matters, but echoed Broad's comments that a no-ball decision could not be reversed.
"The third umpire can review the fairness of delivery on the fall of a wicket but not review a no-ball that has been called on the field," the spokesperson said. "The ICC Cricket Committee has discussed this issue on a number of occasions and come to the same conclusion each time – it is not right that a batsman plays a delivery that is illegal, only to be told retrospectively that it was legal and that he is out by a mode of dismissal that would not have been allowed from an illegal delivery.
"The ICC Cricket Committee will be discussing the use of technology at its next meeting, and the topic of reviewing no-balls will again be part of that discussion."