England v Australia, NatWest Series, The Oval July 1, 2012

Bopara enjoys all-round good day

ESPNcricinfo presents the plays of the day from the second ODI at The Oval
29

Bowling change of the day
Ravi Bopara has not had much work yet this summer with the ball for England; an over against West Indies at The Oval and one against Australia at Lord's was the sum total before today. On this occasion, though, he was given a chance before Graeme Swann and the move paid off handsomely for both bowler and captain as he nipped one back at Michael Clarke to find the inside edge. Bopara will never be picked for his bowling, but it is an underused - and often underestimated - part of his game.

Giveaway of the day
Shane Watson had gone to a run-a-ball fifty but, perhaps in fear of wasting another start, he seized up just when Australia needed to find another gear. His next 30 deliveries brought 16 runs while the team added 24 between overs 20 and 30. Something had to give, and it did. Trying to break the shackles he aimed to launch Swann over deep midwicket but only got as far as Steven Finn who just about judged the catch as he took it by his ankles.

Aggro of the day
Swann could have had another wicket in a very similar way when George Bailey, who played a curious innings during which he laboured against Swann, followed the same route as Watson and tried to clear cow corner. This time it was Tim Bresnan in the position and it was a far harder catch than Finn's as he had to make considerable ground around the boundary to get under the chance. He managed to reach the ball but could not hold on much to Swann's anger. Swann has never been one to take dropped catches well - and has come close to over-stepping the mark on occasions - and chuntered all the way back to the deep at the end of his over.

Run-out of the day
One of the many impressive attributes of England's fast bowlers is how good they are in the field. The team does not carry anyone. Finn showed that being tall does not mean you cannot be agile when he completed the nifty run-out of David Hussey. The batsman had squeezed a yorker back towards Finn who parried the ball but scrambled after it from his follow through and then proceeded to flick the ball back onto the stumps with Hussey well short. However, it was a good job he had not clattered the stumps with his knee - as is becoming a habit - because then the stump would have needed to be uprooted to complete the dismissal.

Comeback of the day
Out went Pat Cummins (for the rest of this tour) and in came Mitchell Johnson. There were almost cheers from the English fans when the team was announced. To be fair to Johnson he has had some good days - mainly in coloured clothes - since he was serenaded with "He bowls to left, he bowls the right" during the last Ashes series, but the home support was not going to let that get in the way. His first spell gave them plenty of ammunition to restart the chants; 2-0-20-0 were the nasty figures at the end of it, including two no-balls the free-hits from which were cracked away by Ian Bell and Alastair Cook.

Failed imitation of the day
Bell is in such fine form that it did not come as much of a surprise when he danced down the pitch and drove Watson straight for six. What did come as a bit of a surprise was that Jonathan Trott, who had moved nicely to 17 off 21 balls, tried to emulate him. Trott has many wonderful attributes as a batsman, but lofted straight drives off the medium-pacers is not top of that list and his attempt ended with an ugly inside edge against Watson.

Review of the day
Two balls after removing the in-form Bell with his first delivery, Michael Clarke appeared to have given England more than just a minor jolt when he won an lbw decision against Eoin Morgan two deliveries later. Morgan, though, immediately asked for a review and, on close inspection, there was the faintest mark on the inside edge from Hot Spot. It was far from bright white and Aleem Dar, in the TV chair, took his time and also used the sound from the stump microphone before advising Richard Illingworth there was conclusive evidence to overturn the decision.

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • xylo on July 2, 2012, 22:01 GMT

    I believe Clarke is taking this tour very seriously as preparation for the Ashes. He is batting like it is a test match!

  • ladycricfan on July 2, 2012, 16:32 GMT

    Morgan's review: the tiny spot where ball passed disappeared immediately. There was another spot appeared at the same time where there was no contact. There was a third spot appeared later. Snicko showed nothing.

  • JG2704 on July 2, 2012, 16:13 GMT

    @satish619chandar on (July 02 2012, 12:30 PM GMT) - I'm pretty sure the right decision was made re Morgan even if it was not a howler. Morgan reviewed it straight away which (with only 1 review allowed he surely would not have done) although I can see where you're coming from. I suppose you could review it without hotspot purely by going to the 3rd umpire for a visible look inc close ups etc but I suppose it's tough losing a review as a batsman if you know you nicked it but only Hotspot shows it.

  • SDHM on July 2, 2012, 12:33 GMT

    Soorajiyer - so you wouldn't mind if the ECB stumped up the money and paid for DRS in the England/India series later this year for the England players to use? If the BCCI doesn't want it, then don't let the players use it, but don't deny others the chance. As for the Sehwag nick in the World Cup, you have to remember that these are new, stronger hot spot cameras, meaning thinner nicks, like Sehwag's was, are now picked up. There was nothing else that mark on the bat could have been but the ball, but with the old Hotspot Morgan would have stayed out. The right decision was made. But it's one of those - the England fans will say justice was done, the Aussies will feel hard done by!

  • satish619chandar on July 2, 2012, 12:30 GMT

    @aracer : We have seen the hotspot giving mark when it is not an edge or not detecting some obvious edges..So you can never be sure of tiny marks.. Hotspot does have flaws when it comes to tiny edges.. As they put in commentary, it is more a umpire decision mistake rather than the technology.. DRS is there to eliminate howlers(Like all of us prefer) and the decision is not a howler to be reversed.. It was almost similar to the Gayle decision.. though some had reservations on Gayle decision, it was how DRS should work.. In case of not so obvious referrals, better if the umpire sticks to the original decision.. It doesn't necessarily need to be an Indian supporter to comment on DRS flaws..

  • jmcilhinney on July 2, 2012, 11:53 GMT

    @subbass on (July 01 2012, 21:33 PM GMT), this is a fine example of a lack of understanding of how DRS and its components work. HotSpot is simply an infrared camera. It detects electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum. You and I know that as heat. They can make the camera more sensitive by making it able to detect smaller amounts of radiation, which they have done recently, but how exactly would they "fix" this issue you speak of? It's not like there's different types of heat and they can make the camera detect one type and not another. Heat is heat. What they show us is a visual representation of the difference in heat radiated by different areas. Darker is cooler and lighter is hotter. That's all there is to it. It's science, not magic.

  • jmcilhinney on July 2, 2012, 11:45 GMT

    @tusharkardile on (July 02 2012, 10:18 AM GMT), Morgan's review is an excellent advertisement for DRS because it shows that HotSpot can detect very faint edges. The fact that Morgan reviewed immediate is merely a strong indication that he believed he had hit it. The only evidence that matters is the obvious hot spot on the bat at the exact time and place that the ball passed the bat. There is no plausible explanation for that spot other than that the ball hit the bat. Anyone who disagrees with that is either simply ignoring the evidence because they are anti-DRS or else doesn't possess a primary school level understanding of science.

  • Hammond on July 2, 2012, 11:41 GMT

    @RandyOZ- so now it is the selectors fault? How about actually admitting that Australia put it's best available team on the park and were outplayed? Can you even bear the thought?

  • Yevghenny on July 2, 2012, 11:23 GMT

    tusharkardile - there is a new hot spot camera to the one you are talking about. What is the point everyone shouting about hotspot needing to improve, then when it does pick up a spot everyone says "how do we know it's not just a random mark?" If everyone will notice, Morgan turns the bat so the face is towards the camera so you can't see the edge anymore, which is why it "disappears". I can guarantee if there was no DRS in this match, people would be saying "but there is a mark, why isn't there DRS in every match?"

  • AdrianVanDenStael on July 2, 2012, 11:21 GMT

    @aracer: in fact not all those who have doubts about DRS are India supporters. I've heard the argument that what went wrong with the Morgan decision was not DRS itself but "the application", but I don't think that's a very helpful distinction, since one of the fundamental problems with DRS is the lack of clarity and consistency about how it is applied. During the last Ashes series I remember Ponting getting worked up about a not-out decision on a caught behind against Pietersen, ironically made on-field by Dar himself, where DRS revealed a hot-spot; ironically it was decided not to reverse the on-field decision. One thing which is memorable in that case is Brad Haddin being as certain that there was an edge in that case as Morgan was in this case, yet I don't remember people leaping to conclusions about that in the way they are now. Also what do we make of Bell not referring an lbw decision against him on Friday when hot spot suggested there was an edge? There are still many questions

  • xylo on July 2, 2012, 22:01 GMT

    I believe Clarke is taking this tour very seriously as preparation for the Ashes. He is batting like it is a test match!

  • ladycricfan on July 2, 2012, 16:32 GMT

    Morgan's review: the tiny spot where ball passed disappeared immediately. There was another spot appeared at the same time where there was no contact. There was a third spot appeared later. Snicko showed nothing.

  • JG2704 on July 2, 2012, 16:13 GMT

    @satish619chandar on (July 02 2012, 12:30 PM GMT) - I'm pretty sure the right decision was made re Morgan even if it was not a howler. Morgan reviewed it straight away which (with only 1 review allowed he surely would not have done) although I can see where you're coming from. I suppose you could review it without hotspot purely by going to the 3rd umpire for a visible look inc close ups etc but I suppose it's tough losing a review as a batsman if you know you nicked it but only Hotspot shows it.

  • SDHM on July 2, 2012, 12:33 GMT

    Soorajiyer - so you wouldn't mind if the ECB stumped up the money and paid for DRS in the England/India series later this year for the England players to use? If the BCCI doesn't want it, then don't let the players use it, but don't deny others the chance. As for the Sehwag nick in the World Cup, you have to remember that these are new, stronger hot spot cameras, meaning thinner nicks, like Sehwag's was, are now picked up. There was nothing else that mark on the bat could have been but the ball, but with the old Hotspot Morgan would have stayed out. The right decision was made. But it's one of those - the England fans will say justice was done, the Aussies will feel hard done by!

  • satish619chandar on July 2, 2012, 12:30 GMT

    @aracer : We have seen the hotspot giving mark when it is not an edge or not detecting some obvious edges..So you can never be sure of tiny marks.. Hotspot does have flaws when it comes to tiny edges.. As they put in commentary, it is more a umpire decision mistake rather than the technology.. DRS is there to eliminate howlers(Like all of us prefer) and the decision is not a howler to be reversed.. It was almost similar to the Gayle decision.. though some had reservations on Gayle decision, it was how DRS should work.. In case of not so obvious referrals, better if the umpire sticks to the original decision.. It doesn't necessarily need to be an Indian supporter to comment on DRS flaws..

  • jmcilhinney on July 2, 2012, 11:53 GMT

    @subbass on (July 01 2012, 21:33 PM GMT), this is a fine example of a lack of understanding of how DRS and its components work. HotSpot is simply an infrared camera. It detects electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum. You and I know that as heat. They can make the camera more sensitive by making it able to detect smaller amounts of radiation, which they have done recently, but how exactly would they "fix" this issue you speak of? It's not like there's different types of heat and they can make the camera detect one type and not another. Heat is heat. What they show us is a visual representation of the difference in heat radiated by different areas. Darker is cooler and lighter is hotter. That's all there is to it. It's science, not magic.

  • jmcilhinney on July 2, 2012, 11:45 GMT

    @tusharkardile on (July 02 2012, 10:18 AM GMT), Morgan's review is an excellent advertisement for DRS because it shows that HotSpot can detect very faint edges. The fact that Morgan reviewed immediate is merely a strong indication that he believed he had hit it. The only evidence that matters is the obvious hot spot on the bat at the exact time and place that the ball passed the bat. There is no plausible explanation for that spot other than that the ball hit the bat. Anyone who disagrees with that is either simply ignoring the evidence because they are anti-DRS or else doesn't possess a primary school level understanding of science.

  • Hammond on July 2, 2012, 11:41 GMT

    @RandyOZ- so now it is the selectors fault? How about actually admitting that Australia put it's best available team on the park and were outplayed? Can you even bear the thought?

  • Yevghenny on July 2, 2012, 11:23 GMT

    tusharkardile - there is a new hot spot camera to the one you are talking about. What is the point everyone shouting about hotspot needing to improve, then when it does pick up a spot everyone says "how do we know it's not just a random mark?" If everyone will notice, Morgan turns the bat so the face is towards the camera so you can't see the edge anymore, which is why it "disappears". I can guarantee if there was no DRS in this match, people would be saying "but there is a mark, why isn't there DRS in every match?"

  • AdrianVanDenStael on July 2, 2012, 11:21 GMT

    @aracer: in fact not all those who have doubts about DRS are India supporters. I've heard the argument that what went wrong with the Morgan decision was not DRS itself but "the application", but I don't think that's a very helpful distinction, since one of the fundamental problems with DRS is the lack of clarity and consistency about how it is applied. During the last Ashes series I remember Ponting getting worked up about a not-out decision on a caught behind against Pietersen, ironically made on-field by Dar himself, where DRS revealed a hot-spot; ironically it was decided not to reverse the on-field decision. One thing which is memorable in that case is Brad Haddin being as certain that there was an edge in that case as Morgan was in this case, yet I don't remember people leaping to conclusions about that in the way they are now. Also what do we make of Bell not referring an lbw decision against him on Friday when hot spot suggested there was an edge? There are still many questions

  • tusharkardile on July 2, 2012, 10:18 GMT

    Morgan's review wasn't the best advertisement for DRS. And people who say he had certainly nicked it because he reviewed it straightaway, I remember Sehwag had also reviewed his WC final decision with the same enthusiasm, but unfortunately for him, there was no random spot.

  • RandyOZ on July 2, 2012, 9:12 GMT

    Bopara had a good game due to the poor attack he was facing. I guess that's what happens when we do not select our best attack.

  • azzaman333 on July 2, 2012, 9:12 GMT

    As an Australian who desperately wanted the Morgan LBW decision to stand, I knew it was not out. It was a clear hot spot right where the ball passed the bat. Yes, it faded quickly, but it was definitive. Now, I hear the detractors saying "but there were other random hot spots!" There was a faint white dot on the sticker of his bat which was an obvious reflection of the light. Unless Morgan has some sort of reflective surface on the exact spot that the ball passed the bat (almost impossibly unlikely), ball hitting bat was the only logical explanation for that particular hot spot. Unfortunately from an Australian point of view, the right decision was made thanks to the DRS.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 2, 2012, 8:11 GMT

    @JG2704 (Post on July 01 2012, 19:59 PM GMT): Yeah Bopara and Bell are both underated part-time bowlers. I'd much rather see either of these two given the ball than the likes of Trott when Dernbach isn't firing...

  • soorajiyer on July 2, 2012, 4:44 GMT

    Can I ask why is DRS not used in lanka vs Pakistan series? Because ICC is not ready to put money but wants boards to do it. So SLC and PCN decided they cant do that with their money. No criticisms there, its two boards decision. And didnt we see how many decisions went against Pakistan?

    Now the Indian board feels that investing so much on an unfinished product is not worth it, so they arent doing it. Its their decision and they stick to it. Listen every board makes a choice, its their decision and I dont think BCCI deserve so much bashing for their decision.. BCCI deserves bashing for so many things, but CERTAINLY NOT THIS.

    I personally am for DRS, but want it to be driven from the third umpire not the players nor the onfield umpires! And as for this game Haaa, convincing evidence that Morgan edged it?? Wonderful - no comments there :)

  • simon_w on July 2, 2012, 3:21 GMT

    @NaniIndCri -- there is no blind support for DRS, but there is overwhelming considered, measured support. "under current rules its definitely not acceptable" -- the only problem with that is that it is clearly acceptable to the entire cricketing world outside India... I wasn't a fan to begin with, and clearly its something that will continue to improve as time goes by. I'm also not that keen on the idea that the players are involved in deciding when it should be used -- that still strikes me as gimmicky and in tension with the "Spirit of Cricket" and all that, but it's time we all accepted that DRS is a part of modern cricket, and it does clearly improve the quality of decision making in the game.

  • RAVI_BOPARA on July 1, 2012, 22:01 GMT

    BOPARA U HAVE SUCCESSFULLY SECURED YOUR ENGLAND ODI FUTURE & HOPEFULLY TESTS TOO!!!!!!!!! HEHEHE...

  • subbass on July 1, 2012, 21:33 GMT

    The problem with Morgans DRS was the fact there was another white dot just above the one he 'hit'. I think he did edge it just by how quick he reviewed it, but I can understand why some people would say DRS is not conclusive enough. It kinda is not seen as how it showed another white mark. That needs fixing in truth.

  • landl47 on July 1, 2012, 21:32 GMT

    I thought Morgan was a tad lucky in that, even if Aleem Dar was right, the evidence was a little sketchy. I doubt anyone would have been on here crying foul if Dar had decided not to overturn the decision. I think Trott let the criticism get to him a bit and played a shot which really isn't in his locker. He did just fine in the first ODI and he should stick to what he does well. You're always more successful doing what you're good at. Ian Bell played a bad shot to Michael Clarke's first ball; it was faster and fuller than Bell thought. At that stage England were well ahead and he could have afforded to have a look for a ball or two.However, he's looked real class in all his 4 ODI innings this Summer. Bopara did well, with bat and ball. I just wish he seemed to be more into the game. He needs a course in smiling!

  • NaniIndCri on July 1, 2012, 21:05 GMT

    @aracer The controversy is not because the mark is faint, it is because there were several other spots appeared at the same time and magically disappeared at the same time, more surprisingly Snicko did not find an edge. Now people can argue they are random marks, but what if the mark in question is random and the randomness appears in more decisions? May be the mark in Lords match when Bell said he did not nick it was random too. I cannot understand the blind support for DRS. I'm not saying DRS must be perfect but there can be hell lot of improvements to it. And under current rules its definitely not acceptable. Moreover its should be part of umpiring the game not part of teams strategic involvement in decisions. Which means it should be used for all the decisions in doubt not just 1 review per team.

  • 5wombats on July 1, 2012, 20:25 GMT

    Bopara... The strange case of Ravi Bopara... GOOD knock from him today. If ever there was a nearly man in English cricket; it's got to be Ravi Bopara. We think we all want to see him come good because he's been persisited with for so long we want to see a return on the investment. Maybe he's just going to be a late developer. Mike Gatting had a similar story. Well done today Ravi!

  • JG2704 on July 1, 2012, 19:59 GMT

    @R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (July 01 2012, 18:48 PM GMT) That and Bopara getting a wky in his 1st over. I think it was Botham (anyway one of the Sky team) was shocked by the decision to bring Ravi on and whoever it was was eating humble pie in the commentary bow when Ravi struck

  • sheila_4 on July 1, 2012, 19:44 GMT

    I too agree about the review of Eoin Morgan. He knew he'd feathered it, reviewed instantly, and sure enough there was the evidence. It was an umpiring error which was corrected - which is precisely what the DRS system is for. End of subject.

  • jmcilhinney on July 1, 2012, 19:15 GMT

    I agree with aracer. We shouldn't even be discussing it because the evidence was conclusive so the decision was rightly overturned. The ball hit the bat, was clearly shown to have hit the bat and therefore the batsman was not out. There was a white dot on the bat when and where the ball passed. The only reason that HotSpot would show a white dot is because, as the name suggests, the spot was hot. What possible explanation is there for that heat other than that the ball hit the bat?

  • jmcilhinney on July 1, 2012, 19:12 GMT

    That run out was a fantastic effort from Finn. Despite his bowling performance he doesn't always strike me as the most athletic person but I think that that is really just the impression he gives. He's done some really good work in the field, chasing down the ball and saving a boundary after a misfiled, a good solid catch in the outfield and then that run out that would do Andrew Symonds proud. Great dedication, effort, agility and skill.

  • jmcilhinney on July 1, 2012, 19:08 GMT

    Good all-round performance from Bopara today. His bowling was a big factor today as Australia really got bogged down through that passage and his batting was understated but highly effective, just like in the T20 against WI. Many would say that he's already had too many chances and I can't say that I definitively disagree but I'd be pleased if he could finally make his mark. Some have criticised his body language but I think he's just a calm, quiet person, like a less cool Marlon Samuels. I don't need to see someone making a fuss to know that they're in the game 100%.

  • jmcilhinney on July 1, 2012, 19:01 GMT

    I've read Swann say that he gets very narky when fielders make mistakes when he's bowling. Maybe his team mates think "Oh that's just Swanny", particularly if he does apologise later. I don't think that open hostility is acceptable though. He doesn't have to be happy about mistakes being made that cost him runs or wickets or both but it's going to happen so he really needs to find a way to deal with it. I've seen him make mistakes too.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 1, 2012, 18:48 GMT

    Bowling change of the day 2: Clarke brings himself on, and bowls Bell.

  • aracer on July 1, 2012, 18:22 GMT

    Can I jump in before the DRS detractors (who strangely enough all seem to be India supporters) - I don't see anything wrong with the overturning of Morgan's decision. The original decision might not have been a howler, but I'd like to see somebody try to argue that on balance of probabilities he didn't hit it (and therefore that DRS improved the decision making process). I don't see it matters how faint the mark is if there is one after the ball has passed which wasn't there before.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • aracer on July 1, 2012, 18:22 GMT

    Can I jump in before the DRS detractors (who strangely enough all seem to be India supporters) - I don't see anything wrong with the overturning of Morgan's decision. The original decision might not have been a howler, but I'd like to see somebody try to argue that on balance of probabilities he didn't hit it (and therefore that DRS improved the decision making process). I don't see it matters how faint the mark is if there is one after the ball has passed which wasn't there before.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 1, 2012, 18:48 GMT

    Bowling change of the day 2: Clarke brings himself on, and bowls Bell.

  • jmcilhinney on July 1, 2012, 19:01 GMT

    I've read Swann say that he gets very narky when fielders make mistakes when he's bowling. Maybe his team mates think "Oh that's just Swanny", particularly if he does apologise later. I don't think that open hostility is acceptable though. He doesn't have to be happy about mistakes being made that cost him runs or wickets or both but it's going to happen so he really needs to find a way to deal with it. I've seen him make mistakes too.

  • jmcilhinney on July 1, 2012, 19:08 GMT

    Good all-round performance from Bopara today. His bowling was a big factor today as Australia really got bogged down through that passage and his batting was understated but highly effective, just like in the T20 against WI. Many would say that he's already had too many chances and I can't say that I definitively disagree but I'd be pleased if he could finally make his mark. Some have criticised his body language but I think he's just a calm, quiet person, like a less cool Marlon Samuels. I don't need to see someone making a fuss to know that they're in the game 100%.

  • jmcilhinney on July 1, 2012, 19:12 GMT

    That run out was a fantastic effort from Finn. Despite his bowling performance he doesn't always strike me as the most athletic person but I think that that is really just the impression he gives. He's done some really good work in the field, chasing down the ball and saving a boundary after a misfiled, a good solid catch in the outfield and then that run out that would do Andrew Symonds proud. Great dedication, effort, agility and skill.

  • jmcilhinney on July 1, 2012, 19:15 GMT

    I agree with aracer. We shouldn't even be discussing it because the evidence was conclusive so the decision was rightly overturned. The ball hit the bat, was clearly shown to have hit the bat and therefore the batsman was not out. There was a white dot on the bat when and where the ball passed. The only reason that HotSpot would show a white dot is because, as the name suggests, the spot was hot. What possible explanation is there for that heat other than that the ball hit the bat?

  • sheila_4 on July 1, 2012, 19:44 GMT

    I too agree about the review of Eoin Morgan. He knew he'd feathered it, reviewed instantly, and sure enough there was the evidence. It was an umpiring error which was corrected - which is precisely what the DRS system is for. End of subject.

  • JG2704 on July 1, 2012, 19:59 GMT

    @R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (July 01 2012, 18:48 PM GMT) That and Bopara getting a wky in his 1st over. I think it was Botham (anyway one of the Sky team) was shocked by the decision to bring Ravi on and whoever it was was eating humble pie in the commentary bow when Ravi struck

  • 5wombats on July 1, 2012, 20:25 GMT

    Bopara... The strange case of Ravi Bopara... GOOD knock from him today. If ever there was a nearly man in English cricket; it's got to be Ravi Bopara. We think we all want to see him come good because he's been persisited with for so long we want to see a return on the investment. Maybe he's just going to be a late developer. Mike Gatting had a similar story. Well done today Ravi!

  • NaniIndCri on July 1, 2012, 21:05 GMT

    @aracer The controversy is not because the mark is faint, it is because there were several other spots appeared at the same time and magically disappeared at the same time, more surprisingly Snicko did not find an edge. Now people can argue they are random marks, but what if the mark in question is random and the randomness appears in more decisions? May be the mark in Lords match when Bell said he did not nick it was random too. I cannot understand the blind support for DRS. I'm not saying DRS must be perfect but there can be hell lot of improvements to it. And under current rules its definitely not acceptable. Moreover its should be part of umpiring the game not part of teams strategic involvement in decisions. Which means it should be used for all the decisions in doubt not just 1 review per team.