'It was handled really poorly'

Australia won’t be pursuing their misgivings about the DRS procedure that led to Mitchell Marsh being dismissed in the decisive moment of tonight’s ODI in Hamilton even though both skippers agreed the process used to make the ruling was “flawed”.

Recap & highlights: Black Caps win amidst drama

While conceding the correct decision had been made to adjudge Marsh out caught and bowled after the ball rebounded from his boot, Australia captain Steve Smith said he was “pretty disappointed” by the incident and that “the whole process was handled pretty poorly”.

"I don't think any of the New Zealand players genuinely believed it to be out, they would have gone to the umpire and made sure he went upstairs otherwise," he told Optus Sport's Across the Ditch. "It wasn't until it was played on the big screen that you could see that it was out. The right decision was made but I just think it was handled really poorly."

The level of Australia’s frustration – fuelled by the belief that New Zealand’s appeal for Marsh to be given out had been denied and the ball was effectively ‘dead’ before a replay on the big screen incited the crowd – could be seen in the lengthy after-match meeting that took place on the field.

With the deciding match in the ODI series between NZ and Australia on a knife's edge, Mitch Marsh was dismissed caught off his foot after much on-field deliberation

Smith, Australia’s acting coach Michael DiVenuto and Bupa Support Team Manager Gavin Dovey engaged in an animated chat with ICC match referee Chris Broad who told them the on-field umpires claimed not to have heard the initial NZ appeal for a catch.

As a consequence, the subsequent appeal to have the matter examined through the video review process which was made as bowler Matt Henry prepared to send down the next delivery led to third umpire S Ravi studying the video.

After which Marsh was ruled to have been caught via the inside of his bat and the toe of his boot, triggering a lower-order collapse in which Australia lost 5-27 to hand the Black Caps victory by 55 runs with more than six overs to spare.

Even though Broad’s explanation that the auxiliary appeal was allowed because the first had gone unnoticed seemed to differ slightly from NZ captain Brendon McCullum’s post-match explanation that umpire Ian Gould “didn’t think we had appealed” Smith indicated the matter would not be taken further.

But he has called for changes to protocols surrounding the replaying of contentious incidents on giant video screens while an appeal is still ‘live’, given their capacity to affect an outcome as was the case this evening.

His concern, as he outlined in the post-match interview he conducted on-field during which he was loudly booed by the Hamilton crowd, was that if video replays are to be aired so soon after decisions are made by umpires then players are likely to wait for the video evidence before deciding if they will make their own review or not.

And he cited an abstract example of him being given out lbw and being tempted to stand his ground to see if the big screen replay shows the ball missing leg stump, at which point the crowd might take up his case for him and pressure the umpires to overturn their ruling.

“He (Broad) said that .. neither of the umpires heard an appeal so the game went on,” Smith explained after the match that ensured New Zealand retained the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy with a 2-1 series win.

“Well it was supposed to go on.

“And after what came up on the big screen, they stopped the game for a bit and Brendon (McCullum) came in and got involved and it was shown on the big screen that there was a half appeal.

“So they went upstairs and Mitchell was given out.

“I was pretty disappointed with the whole process.

“I think that the New Zealand players genuinely didn’t believe it to be out.

“I think Matt Henry had a half appeal and then not until it came up on big screen did they actually come in and get involved and think it was out, so I thought the whole process was handled pretty poorly.”

On a controversial night in Hamilton, Brendon McCullum exited ODI cricket on a winning note, his Black Caps claiming victory over Australia by 55 runs

In expressing his disappointment with the manner in which the episode played out, Smith added he believed the correct decision was ultimately reached and that the Black Caps were within their rights to lodge an appeal given that circumstance.

And that they deserved their series win as they had outplayed his team.

But he declined to be drawn on any potential irony after McCullum wrote a pointed newspaper column criticising Smith and his team for refusing to withdraw their appeal after England’s Ben Stokes was adjudged out ‘obstructing the field’ in an ODI at Lord’s last year.

McCullum argued that while the Australians were within their rights to appeal when Stokes fended the ball away and prevented a possible run out in the process, Smith would live to regret his decision to pursue the appeal as he “missed a chance to strike a blow for the spirit of cricket”.

“They’re well within their rights, that’s for sure,” Smith said when asked if he felt McCullum might withdraw his appeal given the role of the television replay in having the matter re-examined.

“I don’t think it’s McCullum’s decision, it’s the umpires decision so from my point of view I just think the whole process needs to be a little bit smoother.

“I’ve been informed by Chris Broad that the ball isn’t dead until the next ball is bowled, or the bowler starts his run-up so he (Henry) hadn’t done that.

“But there was a lot of time in between that.

“He stopped for a while to watch on the big screen - but they’re well within their rights, yes.

“I think the right decision was made in the end. I think he was out there’s no doubt about that.

“I was just a little bit disappointed with the way it came up on the screen.

“I think that’s something that needs to be improved in our game and quickly.”

McCullum, who was keen to ensure the controversy that raged around the circumstances of the Marsh decision didn’t overshadow his team’s triumphant series win, echoed Smith’s view that the “process wasn’t ideal” but ultimately the correct verdict was reached.

And he also agreed with his rival captain’s view that it wasn’t his obligation to withdraw the appeal because that lay squarely within the jurisdiction of the on-field umpires Gould and Derek Walker.

“It's a tough one because I don't think it's my decision to do that – if anything it's almost disrespectful to do so,” McCullum said.

“Ultimately it comes down to the umpires' decision.

“They decided to review it which is pretty normal in that circumstance as well.

“We see a lot of occasions you see bumped balls referred (to the third umpire).

“I thought if anything it would have been disrespectful to go against that, and hence didn't venture down that route.”

McCullum said he was unsure of whether it was a potential catch or otherwise because of his fielding position at mid-on, but that he saw Martin Guptill (at extra cover) and a couple of other teammates appeal in support of Henry.

“Then when it did come up on the screen - which is not ideal - I sort of yelled out to Gunner (Gould) 'what's going on',” McCullum said tonight.

“He then came over and said ‘I didn't think you guys appealed’. But we did.

“That's when they discussed it.

“The only thing I said was 'surely the right decision needs to be made'.

“I think in the end it was, and obviously it's disappointing from the Australian point of view, but it'd be nice to focus on the fact we took nine other wickets as well and in the end the right decision was made.

“I don't think the process was ideal to be honest. Both teams would agree on that.

"I guess it's disappointing there's a little bit of controversy in what was an outstanding game and series.”