Australia v England, 1st ODI, Melbourne January 12, 2014

Warner's reprieve was 'wrong' - Cook

83

Alastair Cook called the decision to reprieve David Warner from a caught behind decision "wrong" after England began the one-day series with a heavy defeat at the MCG but he is not convinced that returning to a time when a fielder's word was taken is the way forward.

Warner was on 22 when he tried to steer Ben Stokes down to third man and top edged towards the wicketkeeper Jos Buttler who claimed the catch low to the ground.

Warner was happy to take Buttler's word on whether it carried, but the umpire convened to check the replays, which appeared on the big screen as Warner approached the boundary, where he was told to stay inside the playing area by the fourth official.

As so often with those types of replays, the two-dimensional image created enough doubt in the third umpire's mind for him to not give the catch although that was not how Cook felt it should have ended.

"It might have been my biased eyes, my English eyes, but I thought it was a clean catch - hit his fingers and bounced up - but I only saw it a couple of times on the big screen," he said. "I thought it was the wrong decision but you have to respect the umpires' decision otherwise you get in trouble."

On the field, all the players reacted calmly to the situation and Warner gave Buttler a supportive pat on the back as he returned to the crease. It is easy for the fielder to be made out to be the villain but for most of the ex-cricketers at the ground it was one of those they were convinced was caught cleanly.

Cook, though, believes TV replays still need to be used. "If a player does claim and it clearly shows it wasn't a catch then it's a tough one and looks foolish on the technology. David thought it had carried as well as he was quite happy to walk off. It's strange because a lot of those look worse on TV than real life. But that one, I didn't see it hit the ground."

While the umpires' decision was out of England's hands, they could have avoided some self-inflicted errors especially the life given to Aaron Finch on 8 when Gary Ballance dropped a simple chance at mid-off. Cook admitted it was the continuation of a worrying trend in the team, coupled as it was with numerous fumbles in the outfield.

"It is something we are aware of we. We haven't fielded to the standard we are capable of on this tour. Fielding comes down to two things; wanting the ball to come to you and hard work. We are not bad fielders. For the last three or months - actually it's been longer than that - we are dropping too many chances and we are aware of that. We can't keep gifting simple chances away."

To add to Cook's woes, he had another brief stay in the middle, falling in the first over of the match when he edged Clint McKay, and admitted he needs to return to making significant contributions. He said he felt as good as he had at any time in the tour during his morning net, although conceded form there means "bugger all" if it doesn't bring runs.

Another defeat will be followed by another flight, this time to Canberra to face the Prime Minister's XI on Tuesday before England head to Brisbane for Friday's ODI, with an upturn in England's fortunes seemingly no nearer.

"We just need to somehow stop the rot and it's amazing how quickly it can turn around," he said. "We saw some good things today but at the crucial moments couldn't take our chances."

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Thegimp on January 15, 2014, 10:53 GMT

    @Doogius......maybe we look at another rule, that of desent. Wouldn't it be desent if a batsman walked when the unpires (all three) have deemed him not out? Did Gilchrist question the umpire's decision when he walked after being given not out? Seriously though, Warner showed good form by asking for Buttler's opinion and walking, Buttler I will give the benefit of the doubt albeit I think even he had doubt and I really think the umpire did OK to refer it. In the end it was the correct result and realistically if it takes just a little time and drama to get to the correct result then so be it. Better that, than the media hanging Buttler for appearing to cheat.

    P.S. Jones realistically should have been not out as he was given run out however he was not attempting a run. Now the umpires would have called dead ball under one of the below rules. That was a genuine mistake

  • Doogius on January 15, 2014, 10:14 GMT

    @thegimp. Jones dismissal was due to him being runout after walking after being bowled off a no ball. Bit different to this. The rest, I disagree, if you walk, you thought it was out. End of wicket. Maybe I'm too old school...

  • Thegimp on January 15, 2014, 9:10 GMT

    Does anyone remember Dean Jones being run out by the West Indies after thinking he had been dismissed walking and not realising it was a no-ball?

  • Thegimp on January 15, 2014, 9:08 GMT

    @Doogius....I'm not convinced. I would have thought DRS is a review when a decision had been made. This was more like a run out where the ump asked for clarification prior to making a decision. I also don't think the fact that a batsman walks means he should be out. Imagine Mid off running back to take a catch, he dives fumbles the ball hits the turf with his body between the ball and the batsman. He grabs it and says he caught it. The batsman starts to walk thinking it was all clean however the umpire thinks he saw something different and asks for clarification. Another example. The batsman dances down the pitch, misses and the keeper takes the ball in front of the stumps and takes off the bails. The batsman doesn't even look back and starts to walk. The umpire asks for clarification of where the keeper took the ball. Walking should be considered as nothing more than etiquette.

  • Doogius on January 15, 2014, 7:58 GMT

    @Reuben. 27(6) clearly states 'that the other umpire'. Its talking about square leg. The moment they asked the 3rd umpire to review - its subject to DRS. Pretty simple really. Guess others have differing opinions but at least, I'm not thirsty...@the gimp, refer some of the bylaw quotes below. 3rd umpire is DRS, 4th ump is for ump fatalities and guard duty. My question was whether walking constituted a straight up dismissal.

  • on January 15, 2014, 7:17 GMT

    @Doogius -- I already directed you to a specific law that covers that one. What can I say? You can lead a horse to water I guess.

  • Doogius on January 15, 2014, 6:32 GMT

    @Reuben. Can I refer you to the ICC website which has the rules for the use of the DRS. Its broken into 2 sections - section 2 - umpire review. A quote 'players may not appeal to the umpire to use the Umpire Review' so its pretty clear its for umpires. Then the rules for player review. Now Warner didn't request a review - because he was walking - so it must be an umpire review which makes it applicable as a DRS decision. Before you hit me with test playing conditions at the top - refer to the ICC std one day conditions that refer to that appendix as applicable for 1 dayers. One could make the argument that if what you say is correct, then Warner walking was time wasting because - no one had given him out. Couldn't find a specific rule to cover that one (ok couldn't be bothered) but an incoming bat has 2 mins with which to face up or his out. I'm sure Warner sat on his bat at the boundary for longer than 2 mins - so perhaps he should have been given for that?

  • Thegimp on January 15, 2014, 0:41 GMT

    Watching the huddle of the English players after Warner walked and , at that stage, not realising the umpire had stopped Warner I immediately thought that Buttler didn't look confident. Obviously he knew it was going upstairs and was second guessing. Sometimes in the euphoria of the moment you can claim the catch confidently and it is only after a few moments you start to think that it may have been a bump ball.

    I recall doing something similar, catching a 16yo Michael Di Venuto at point, throwing it in the air and then thinking, "Oh no, I'm not sure" the umpire gave it out, the batsman walked and my Captain called him back.

    In this case, the umpire never gave it out and wasn't sure so referred it, stopped Warner and the correct decision was made. This use of the third umpire isn't part of DRS. This use was brought about to stop the mass hysteria that usually follows, lambasting a fielder for claiming something that was 50/50. Imagine what would have happened if given out?

  • on January 14, 2014, 20:39 GMT

    @Doogius -- why do you keep talking about DRS? I don't recall Cook calling for DRS. Did I miss that? To my recollection, he just wasn't given, and so was rightly called back. The umpires consulted, as per Law 27 part 6, and the doubt was sufficient. Sure he walked, but parts 2 and 7 are pretty clear on that. It's not me you're disagreeing with -- it's the Laws of Cricket you're disagreeing with.

  • Doogius on January 14, 2014, 20:14 GMT

    @Reuben. They key word is misapprehension and probably represents the laws failing to keep up with technology. I would view that in the spirit of the game and the purpose of DRS, misapprehension would represent a 'howler', not a 50-50 call. Fair enough, an umpire can stop a batsman under certain circumstances but I still think Warner (or anyone else for that matter) walks, he's out (as you so kindly pointed out in ref 27(2)b). Guess we agree to disagree.

  • Thegimp on January 15, 2014, 10:53 GMT

    @Doogius......maybe we look at another rule, that of desent. Wouldn't it be desent if a batsman walked when the unpires (all three) have deemed him not out? Did Gilchrist question the umpire's decision when he walked after being given not out? Seriously though, Warner showed good form by asking for Buttler's opinion and walking, Buttler I will give the benefit of the doubt albeit I think even he had doubt and I really think the umpire did OK to refer it. In the end it was the correct result and realistically if it takes just a little time and drama to get to the correct result then so be it. Better that, than the media hanging Buttler for appearing to cheat.

    P.S. Jones realistically should have been not out as he was given run out however he was not attempting a run. Now the umpires would have called dead ball under one of the below rules. That was a genuine mistake

  • Doogius on January 15, 2014, 10:14 GMT

    @thegimp. Jones dismissal was due to him being runout after walking after being bowled off a no ball. Bit different to this. The rest, I disagree, if you walk, you thought it was out. End of wicket. Maybe I'm too old school...

  • Thegimp on January 15, 2014, 9:10 GMT

    Does anyone remember Dean Jones being run out by the West Indies after thinking he had been dismissed walking and not realising it was a no-ball?

  • Thegimp on January 15, 2014, 9:08 GMT

    @Doogius....I'm not convinced. I would have thought DRS is a review when a decision had been made. This was more like a run out where the ump asked for clarification prior to making a decision. I also don't think the fact that a batsman walks means he should be out. Imagine Mid off running back to take a catch, he dives fumbles the ball hits the turf with his body between the ball and the batsman. He grabs it and says he caught it. The batsman starts to walk thinking it was all clean however the umpire thinks he saw something different and asks for clarification. Another example. The batsman dances down the pitch, misses and the keeper takes the ball in front of the stumps and takes off the bails. The batsman doesn't even look back and starts to walk. The umpire asks for clarification of where the keeper took the ball. Walking should be considered as nothing more than etiquette.

  • Doogius on January 15, 2014, 7:58 GMT

    @Reuben. 27(6) clearly states 'that the other umpire'. Its talking about square leg. The moment they asked the 3rd umpire to review - its subject to DRS. Pretty simple really. Guess others have differing opinions but at least, I'm not thirsty...@the gimp, refer some of the bylaw quotes below. 3rd umpire is DRS, 4th ump is for ump fatalities and guard duty. My question was whether walking constituted a straight up dismissal.

  • on January 15, 2014, 7:17 GMT

    @Doogius -- I already directed you to a specific law that covers that one. What can I say? You can lead a horse to water I guess.

  • Doogius on January 15, 2014, 6:32 GMT

    @Reuben. Can I refer you to the ICC website which has the rules for the use of the DRS. Its broken into 2 sections - section 2 - umpire review. A quote 'players may not appeal to the umpire to use the Umpire Review' so its pretty clear its for umpires. Then the rules for player review. Now Warner didn't request a review - because he was walking - so it must be an umpire review which makes it applicable as a DRS decision. Before you hit me with test playing conditions at the top - refer to the ICC std one day conditions that refer to that appendix as applicable for 1 dayers. One could make the argument that if what you say is correct, then Warner walking was time wasting because - no one had given him out. Couldn't find a specific rule to cover that one (ok couldn't be bothered) but an incoming bat has 2 mins with which to face up or his out. I'm sure Warner sat on his bat at the boundary for longer than 2 mins - so perhaps he should have been given for that?

  • Thegimp on January 15, 2014, 0:41 GMT

    Watching the huddle of the English players after Warner walked and , at that stage, not realising the umpire had stopped Warner I immediately thought that Buttler didn't look confident. Obviously he knew it was going upstairs and was second guessing. Sometimes in the euphoria of the moment you can claim the catch confidently and it is only after a few moments you start to think that it may have been a bump ball.

    I recall doing something similar, catching a 16yo Michael Di Venuto at point, throwing it in the air and then thinking, "Oh no, I'm not sure" the umpire gave it out, the batsman walked and my Captain called him back.

    In this case, the umpire never gave it out and wasn't sure so referred it, stopped Warner and the correct decision was made. This use of the third umpire isn't part of DRS. This use was brought about to stop the mass hysteria that usually follows, lambasting a fielder for claiming something that was 50/50. Imagine what would have happened if given out?

  • on January 14, 2014, 20:39 GMT

    @Doogius -- why do you keep talking about DRS? I don't recall Cook calling for DRS. Did I miss that? To my recollection, he just wasn't given, and so was rightly called back. The umpires consulted, as per Law 27 part 6, and the doubt was sufficient. Sure he walked, but parts 2 and 7 are pretty clear on that. It's not me you're disagreeing with -- it's the Laws of Cricket you're disagreeing with.

  • Doogius on January 14, 2014, 20:14 GMT

    @Reuben. They key word is misapprehension and probably represents the laws failing to keep up with technology. I would view that in the spirit of the game and the purpose of DRS, misapprehension would represent a 'howler', not a 50-50 call. Fair enough, an umpire can stop a batsman under certain circumstances but I still think Warner (or anyone else for that matter) walks, he's out (as you so kindly pointed out in ref 27(2)b). Guess we agree to disagree.

  • on January 14, 2014, 14:30 GMT

    @Doogius -- see law 27 parts 2 and 7. They're both a little further down in the comments.

    The decision had nothing to do with DRS. It wasn't given out.

  • Doogius on January 14, 2014, 10:24 GMT

    @Reuben. Disagree. App. 2.2 DRS Playing conditions (you know, rules of cricket) do not state that an umpire can stop a batsman who has been given out. They can review if there's doubt about the catch. Once Warner walked, he's out. No review necessary, especially since DRS was to remove howlers, this was far from a howler. Since however I don't know 'the rules' perhaps you can explain how the sub umpire (the 4th umpire - see standard one day international playing conditions), yes, the guy that takes out the balls and guards the pitch from pitch invaders during intervals technically has the ability to stop Warner, especially since the 3rd umpy is still breathing? Happy to check out your reference when you find it :)

  • on January 14, 2014, 5:54 GMT

    It's pretty surprising how many posters here don't seem to have much understanding of the laws of the game.

  • on January 14, 2014, 5:52 GMT

    @Doogius -- the fourth official stopped him from leaving the playing area.

    @RHJB -- it wasn't reviewed. It wasn't given in the first place.

  • RJHB on January 14, 2014, 3:50 GMT

    Looked alright to me, and in any event the batsman walked on the fieldsman's word that'd he'd caught it fairly, so, simply, OUT! How on earth was it even reviewed? The batsman walked! Dear o dear. It's a game of millimetres, or atleast its become that, but when imperfect technology is being used to make millimetre decisions, it becomes a farce.

  • on January 14, 2014, 3:17 GMT

    Really? I watched it frame to frame and in full flow.... 45-50 times on MySky (digital HD playback).... because I like to be right and to know I am better researched when I go to proffer my opinion... The ball does hit the webbing / fingers and then goes up and into the gloves...this is what the keeper felt...he did not however notice or feel the front 6% of the ball's surface area nick the ground as it hit his fingers... Not out. I say that as a kiwi too.... I do favours for the Aussies over my dead body... so you can be sure that is how it was. Not subjectively, but objectively... and not as opinion, but as fact. Hope set straight. FYI - I used a 55-inch HD tv to play the footage back on... I am confident that it touched the ground... the dimensional nature of the image is irrelevant to this conclusion.

  • Doogius on January 14, 2014, 1:54 GMT

    @AussieSam. Its called cricket etiquette. You walk if you know you're out. To relate this incident to say a bowler appealing is nonsense. @WFGCares. How did the central umpire tell a fellow in the middle of the park to 'wait' - telepathy? Did the central ump chase after him? No, he looked at the big screen, saw it was being reviewed and waited. At this point he no longer trusted the fielders word, which is what walking on a catch is all about in the first place. Regardless of whether Warner is telepathic or not, the moment he walked, the decision is out. To over turn it needs to be clear evidence. You only need to look through this forum to see it wasn't exactly clear. As for Gilly, well perhaps you want to rewind to a certain WI world cup match where Gilly walked and the guy dropped it (on replay). Can't remember which game it was but do remember slats having a good laugh about it. Perhaps it was the game you missed :)

  • dropzone on January 13, 2014, 22:10 GMT

    yeah yeah it was wrong. Now just play the 2nd ODI and try winning that.

  • kitten on January 13, 2014, 17:16 GMT

    I am surprised that Cook was not happy with the decision.......I saw it as well, and it was indeed very doubtful, so, as happens very often, the benefit goes to the batsman. Also if one remembers correctly, when Broad nicked it (big nick) to Clarke via Hadden in England, Cook did not have much to say about that, and as we all know, that had a big impact on the match, as Broad went on to score around fifty or more, and eventually England won. So that is cricket, you take the good with the bad, and get on with it. Unfortunately, Cook is having a horrid time in Australia, both as captain, and batsman, and I feel sorry for the guy. He is a class act as a batsman, and I feel sure, he will return to form, with SL and India due to arrive in the next few months. Australia were in the doldrums a few months ago, and are on the rise again. We have to wait and see how they fare against SA, and then make a judgement about their revival. I'm sure England will fare better in the remaining ODIs.

  • on January 13, 2014, 12:53 GMT

    Give us a break, Cook. Ever heard of "The benefit of the doubt"? The umpire was doubtful. The replays were inconclusive. Just stop looking for external excuses and get better as a team.

  • StarveTheLizard on January 13, 2014, 12:31 GMT

    I think this is a fair measure of England under Giles rather than Flower. Dropped catches, slow scoring and unseemly griping. If Giles can turn things round then there is a case for change. If things continue to fall apart then there will be cries for Giles' replacement as well.

  • on January 13, 2014, 11:24 GMT

    rewind to 1977 and the packer revolution, umpires had to be in a position to judge whether a batsman was in or out, oh and ib those days we didn't have "neutral" umpites....one of the best decisions i have seen was by tony crafter giving a guy out (not sure of the game), and richie benuad, who was pushing the technology saying it was a brilliant decision, umpires must umpire, not stand and count balls

  • Pippy_the_dog on January 13, 2014, 10:32 GMT

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't umpires told by the ICC not to refer catches to the third umpire. The reason for this was because the technology can make a clean catch look like it has been dropped. I have no idea whether this catch was clean or not, but I think it raises larger questions about the state of international umpiring.

    Am I alone in thinking that the on-field umpires should be taking decisions as they are paid to do. Nobody would dispute that umpires have a difficult job, but it is a job they chose, and they are paid very well for it. We have got to the stage where they are actively avoiding every decision they don't have to make, even when the result is patently obvious. If they can't make obvious line calls or judge whether a catch is clean, I don't know what they're there for!

  • whofriggincares on January 13, 2014, 10:05 GMT

    @doogius, let's look at this for what it is, he didn't "stop at the boundary on the off chance he would be called back" he stopped because the central umpire told him to wait after consulting with the square leg umpire and deciding that they both had serious doubts as to whether it carried. Even the most noble of walkers like Gilly would have done exactly the same had such doubt arisen about any of his dismissals that he walked on. I watch almost every Aussie game and can't remember one time when there was doubt on any of Gilchrist dismissals. They were all clean above the ankle. Warner took the word of the keeper who obviously thought he got it cleanly the umpires did their thing and the rest is history . Warner should not have any questioning of his character or ethics in this case and nor should Butler , very simple really.

  • Green_and_Gold on January 13, 2014, 9:57 GMT

    @Stup1d - This isnt a DRS issue - There was no review by a captain. The umpires just checked the replays to make sure the ball carried - that was happening well before DRS came in.

  • AussieSam on January 13, 2014, 9:56 GMT

    @Doogius: My understanding is that Warner was stopped and told not to leave the field by the 4th umpire.

    I don't really understand the position of 'if the players are happy it's out, it should be out'. First of all, that can't be applied with any other mode of dismissal. Should we take the players word with LBW? If the bowler thinks it's hitting the stumps, or if the batsman thinks he hit it? Should we take the keeper's word on stumpings?

  • on January 13, 2014, 9:47 GMT

    "Warner gave Buttler a supportive pat on the back as he returned to the crease"

    It should be the other way... "Buttler gave Warner a supportive pat on the back as he returned to the crease"

  • Doogius on January 13, 2014, 9:25 GMT

    @whofgcares. In my experience, if you walk, you don't stop @ the boundary on the off chance you'll be called back. Warner walked, fair enough but stopping, well why walk in the first place. Whether it was a catch is debateable, my point was more whether walking constituted being given out and evidence being required to overturn it. IMV, not enough evidence but that's cricket isn't it....

  • on January 13, 2014, 8:46 GMT

    People have pretty short memories here. Haddins catch that was ruled not out in the 5th test looked more out than last nights catch. I am happy enough with the fact the umpires across two different matches and two differ series have been consistent.

  • dunger.bob on January 13, 2014, 8:16 GMT

    It's just a pity that spider-cam wasn't directly over the hot zone at the time. A top down view adds the third dimension and even though our brains usually can't bring it all together, a decent computer can. .. I propose a spidercam over each and every player. Follow them around like dogs. Has anyone got really cool ones that don't need wires?

    @ jplterrors : Take care of India in that upcoming series and I'll make our vowel challenged cousins my second team. Cross my heart and hope to die.

  • AussieSam on January 13, 2014, 8:16 GMT

    @cricmatters: The Channel 9 commentators were of the opinion that there was a white mark that was already there before the ball passed the bat. I personally couldn't see it (my TV isn't very big). But Snicko showed a little later that there was a noise as the ball passed the bat. Whether this was evidence of a faint nick or if it was from his bat hitting the pad at the same time (which would explain why he thought he hit it) is impossible to know. Of course he'd already been given out anyway so even if DRS wasn't being used it wouldn't have changed the decision.

    Regarding the Warner incident, it sounds like the Channel 9 commentators were the less biased bunch in this case. Slats said he thought it was not out but that maybe it's a case of 'seeing what you want to see', Bumble agreed with that but thought it was out, and probably the most biased of all, Healy, said he thought it was out, though he was a keeper. I heard the Sky commentators were jumping up and down about it.

  • sguha12 on January 13, 2014, 8:10 GMT

    @Jared Hansen, totally agree with you. Surprising to see Cricinfo's take on this. There is nothing wrong with the two dimensional views on replays. When Clarke took a sharp catch at Sydney off Scoot Borthwick in the England second innings, it clearly looked out on the replays. Clarke had scooped it out before it hit the ground. Warner was clearly not out even though the Sky Sports commentary team was convinced otherwise. Besides umpires routinely check with the third umpires for a no-ball even when a batsman is caught cleanly or bowled.

  • on January 13, 2014, 7:58 GMT

    England ll lose the serious 5-0 for sure.....though i am looking forward for SA vs Aust series

  • whofriggincares on January 13, 2014, 7:01 GMT

    @ Doogius, Warner "walked" because he asked Butler if it was clean and was told it was, he knew he had hit it so he accepted Butlers word and left the crease. In other words he did the right thing but he still cops flak for it. In my experience a fielder always knows deep down whether the ball has hit the ground or not, however this would not apply in the case of a keeper as his gloves take away his touch and senses, I don't think Jos did anything wrong at all and Warner's reaction when he returned to the crease suggests he feels the same. I also think the video evidence was fairly clear in showing at least part of the ball touched the ground so you cant whinge about DRS not working because I think MOST of us know the right decision was reached in this case.

  • WalkingWicket11 on January 13, 2014, 6:48 GMT

    I thought DRS had solved all these problems. Where are the BCCI bashers now?

  • KaizerChief786 on January 13, 2014, 6:40 GMT

    I think the umpire had doubts from the beginning as to the catch. I can't see any issue with the referral.

  • Cpt.Meanster on January 13, 2014, 5:37 GMT

    More whining by Cook. Even if Warner went early, the rest of the batting line up of Australia would have chased the total of 270 down with ease. Clearly Cook is lost for words and excuses, I feel sorry for him each day. England's think tank have no thinking left in them and are making scrambled choices. On a slow Melbourne pitch, they play 4 fast bowlers, one of them over 6.6" tall (Rankin), and Joe Root as their only "spinner". This goes to show their brains are fried and not functioning coherently. Another 5-0 drubbing on the cards; this time in the ODIs. I can only feel for the die hard English supporters who still continue to stay awake late at night expecting something different from this bunch.

  • on January 13, 2014, 5:34 GMT

    Also:

    7. Batsman leaving his wicket under a misapprehension

    An umpire shall intervene if satisfied that a batsman, not having been given out, has left his wicket under a misapprehension that he is out. The umpire intervening shall call and signal Dead ball to prevent any further action by the fielding side and shall recall the batsman.

  • on January 13, 2014, 5:30 GMT

    Regarding all these "Warner walked, therefore he's out" comments:

    <snip> Law 27

    2. Batsman dismissed

    A batsman is dismissed if,

    either (a) he is given out by an umpire, on appeal,

    or (b) he is out under any of the Laws and leaves his wicket as in 1 above. </snip>

    So, part (a), he wasn't given out. Part (b), he did leave his wicket, but wasn't out under the laws. Whether he walked or not is irrelevant because the catch wasn't taken.

  • on January 13, 2014, 4:49 GMT

    Well that explains Cooks form both as a captain and as a batsmen. No focus and just not seeing the ball.

  • Henry_Crun on January 13, 2014, 4:28 GMT

    @cricmatters - the Yanks called and want to hire your "naked eye" as a missile early warning detection system. If this eye of yours is so good that it can outperform a battery of cameras while being perched with the rest of you in the outer at the MCG 150m from the stumps, then detecting a missile launch on the other side of the planet should be child's play for it.

  • jplterrors on January 13, 2014, 4:20 GMT

    Another lucky win 4 aus, NZs lethal world cup 2015 and test champ 2017 winning side wouldnt have let them get anywhere near 270

  • Ross_Co on January 13, 2014, 4:06 GMT

    @RednWhiteArmy - Clarke & Smith didn't move at all let alone walk because, well, they hit it for six. I understand that 'England' want 'six and out' to go into the playing conditions for the next ashes but, alas for them, that wasn't the case in the late series.

  • disco_bob on January 13, 2014, 3:50 GMT

    It was not like the Haddin catch because Hadds had a finger under it. Buttler's fingers are clearly at the side of the ball. Cook has mentally disintegrated and needs to be dropped from the ODI team if England do not want to lose 5-0

  • Talalthegreat on January 13, 2014, 3:40 GMT

    Well. even if it had been out aus would still have won easily. Instead of Warner Clarke would've made more runs

  • on January 13, 2014, 3:30 GMT

    @RednWhiteArmy: that is not a fair comment. What hotspot and snicko are occasionally revealing is that sometimes batsmen simply don't know that they have hit the ball. Either a tiny feather, like Haddin's at Nottingham or even Warner's at Manchester where he hit the cover of it, but because he also hit his pad, he didn't feel the impact on the bat. He looked very silly, but it did prove my point. Stop assuming the worst about people. Sometimes they genuinely don't know.

  • on January 13, 2014, 2:52 GMT

    @cricmatters: best comment today, sir!

  • jonesy2 on January 13, 2014, 2:42 GMT

    im sorry but cook is just embarrassing himself further and disgracing himself and his pathetic excuse for a cricket team. it clearly bounced, thank god the umpires got it right and the continually cheating poms aren't getting away with it like in England. but at least this rabble is entertaining in their complete and utter ineptitude on and off the field. send "England" (Ireland, Zimbabwe, south Africa, new Zealand, barbados) to the associate level they shouldn't be allowed to play with the big boys

  • Jagger on January 13, 2014, 2:20 GMT

    Alas Cookie, at least you can take solace from the knowledge you lost the Ashes fair and square.

  • PENlS on January 13, 2014, 2:11 GMT

    It was identical to the one Haddin had turned down in the test match.

  • on January 13, 2014, 1:54 GMT

    If you supported Australia (as I do), it wasn't out. If you supported England, it was out. If you were a neutral, it was whatever the heck you wanted it to be.

  • Cricket_theBestGame on January 13, 2014, 1:48 GMT

    i must admit i also thought it was out and it did look out on the 2 replays they showed from different angles. but when they showed close up on the 3rd angle (zooming only on the keeper) it did appear to tap the ground before hitting the underlying finger. so the right decision was made. having said that, once warner and keeper agreed the catch was taken, umpire shouldn't have interfered.

  • RednWhiteArmy on January 13, 2014, 1:09 GMT

    @harrowXI Oh that'll be the same test in which both Clarke & Haddin didnt walk either, yea?

  • cricmatters on January 13, 2014, 1:06 GMT

    I watched this match live at MCG. Great atmosphere with 38,660 attending. They showed Joe Root's dismissal review on joint screen and I could clearly see a hotspot on the edge of his bat. Not sure whether they showed it live on TV or not. Also many LBW decisions which look plumb to naked eye seems to be mysteriously missing the stumps. I think this whole DRS thing is a farce. Who knows how many variables you can manipulate on the computer to get the desired outcome for the home team. Time to go back to real time umpiring. Call it as you see it and bad decisions would eventually even out.

  • on January 13, 2014, 1:02 GMT

    Instead of bleating about a decision Cook should concentrate on his batting - he is no position to call on these until he gains some respect

  • on January 13, 2014, 0:30 GMT

    If the batsman and the keeper agree then why should the umpires intervene when tv on many occasions is inconclusive in these type of decisions...sure,if the ball clearly bounced well before the keeper or was a big no ball then fine,overturn the error...there was no totally conclusive proof that the ball had not carried thus the gentleman's agreement should have sufficed.

  • cricket_ahan on January 13, 2014, 0:09 GMT

    I don't see the issue in this. It's the umpire's call, and that has been true in cricket from the start. So regardless of players' word, walking etc, if the umpire doesn't give it out, it isn't - end of story. Think Cook is really starting to crack under pressure.

  • cricmatters on January 13, 2014, 0:05 GMT

    Where was Kevin Peiterson?

  • kepler22b on January 12, 2014, 23:35 GMT

    What surprises me is that the same thing happened when Stokes was given the benefit of the doubt in the last test when he was 'caught' behind by Haddin. The incidents were identical with the same outcome - I guess winners are grinners because it was never mentioned by Clarke.

    Cook and Root need to be given a rest. Root is being ruined and it would be sad to see such a young talent destroyed by poor management. Its quite amazing to see all the English batting talent in the BBL not getting a gig - Wright being the most obvious.

    Then again, as an aussie, I can only hope the English persevere with such a pedestrian bowling attack and slow coach batsmen.

  • Kiwiheart on January 12, 2014, 23:16 GMT

    @ HarrowXI: There is a big difference in Warner and the Broad dismissal. That is David Warner did walk. Perhaps it makes Warner a better person and in the "spirit of the game" the players in the middle coming together to make a mutual agreement was the thing to do. The umpires intervention was wrong as the players had come to a decision. The umpires should only have looked into the catch had David Warner not trusted Buttler's word. The constant use of television umpires encourages those like your friend Broad not to walk, it takes control away from the players and discourages "fair play" and "spirit of the game" Though those two phrases perhaps aren't relevant in sport to much with winning and walking is increasingly uncommon. In a different situation like a tight finish towards the end of an innings or in an ashes test Warner probably wouldn't have walked. This is why in these situations were the players are happy to agree and come to a decision should not be discouraged.

  • TheBigBoodha on January 12, 2014, 23:10 GMT

    The ball hit the turf, quite clearly from the second camera. So I don't see what is wrong about calling the batsman back. The first camera didn't catch that - the old missing frame thing. But there's no way you can argue against an image that shows the ball hitting the grass.

  • on January 12, 2014, 22:54 GMT

    Typical whinging English. Haddins close call in the Sydney test was exactly the same as this if not cleaner and it was given not out with little fuss. Here we have to read long winded articles because Cookie is a bit upset. Pathetic.

  • Doogius on January 12, 2014, 22:40 GMT

    Liked how Warner 'walked' until he realised it was being reviewed. Do we call this a semi-Gilchrist? Poor mans attempt at etiquette. Here's an interesting argument however, as he walked, the decision is out. Was there enough evidence to overturn the decision? IMV, no, its a 50-50 call. The original decision should have stood, out. Now if Warner had stood his ground, different story. Think its an inconsistency 'again' in the application of DRS.

  • 512fm on January 12, 2014, 22:32 GMT

    Maybe Cook would have had a different view if it was him batting..

  • pat_one_back on January 12, 2014, 21:39 GMT

    Getting a finger under the ball as it bounces and scooping it up before it bounces on the ground are two quite different circumstances, for mine the sharp bounce on impact indicates the former, regardless it's common practice these days for catches this close to be reviewed and turned down. Hadds took a similar one in Sydney I recall, I think it was Ballance, deemed not out or two close to call perhaps. Completely inconsequential to either result, surprised Cook would even mention it other than to applaud David Warner on his fine sportsmanship throughout the incident.

  • Ross_Co on January 12, 2014, 21:34 GMT

    Don't know about 'ex-players' but ABC radio called this a bump ball from the first replay.

  • electric_loco_WAP4 on January 12, 2014, 21:28 GMT

    To borrow line from Zaltzman- 'the wheels have certainly come off the bus and fallen into the river.' Certainly Cook and Eng's goose is cooked on this tour from hell in a pressure cooker called Australia and Aussies having a feast !! Loving it !-:)

  • disco_bob on January 12, 2014, 21:08 GMT

    For Cook to be mentioning this is bad enough but to try and back himself up by claiming that Warner thought it was out because he was happy to walk is about as low as Cook can get. Truth is Warner walked because he asked Buttler the question, and he was happy to take Buttler's word. Buttler should have done what Haddin did in a similar situation, where Haddin actually did have a finger under the ball, and said he wasn't sure when asked the question.

    The clip is on you tube and it clearly shows the ball bouncing into his gloves off the ground. It's a bit rich for Cook to suddenly want to take the fielder's word after England rejected that when Ponting suggested it, and anyway has he forgotten Ian Bell's 'catch' to dismiss Mohammad Yousuf at Faisalabad in 2005

  • CricketingStargazer on January 12, 2014, 20:08 GMT

    It might have been wrong, but it was irrelevant. England lost because two of the top three should not have been in the side. Cook and Root are struggling for form and confidence. Australia doubled England's score for the first 11 overs: - England are effectively playing with two batsmen and at least five overs few than the opposition and no side can overcome that.

    Cook should rest for the second game, handing over the captaincy to Eoin Morgan. Michael Carbery should play and Tredwell should play instead of Root.

  • on January 12, 2014, 19:53 GMT

    Surprised by Cricinfo's line that this should have been given. From where Buttler's fingers were the bounce looked a bit too steep to have come off them and it looked like it would have been very tight for any of the ball to have not touched the ground.

  • thiruven on January 12, 2014, 19:02 GMT

    Root needs to go home and look for alternative career.

  • gogoldengreens on January 12, 2014, 18:46 GMT

    Maybe Buttler needs to wear gloves that are a different colour to the ball... White on white with nothing else makes it hard to see if a little finger is under the ball however a bit of colour contrast in front of the ball would help prove the point.

  • HarrowXI on January 12, 2014, 18:36 GMT

    Life is a circle. It's says what goes around comes around. Cook didn't say a word when Stuart broad didn't walk in last Ashes in uk. Now moaning about David Warner should be out. Come on oz lets do it 5-o in one days.

  • on January 12, 2014, 16:52 GMT

    To me.. I could see part of the ball touching the grass and no sign of finger under it.. If I am not wrong any part of the ball touching the ground is not a catch.... don't know what the commentators were on about.. As soon as I saw the replay I said Not Out... and commentators were going thats clearly out the bump is off his finger.. I could not see a finger, but i could definetely see the ball touching the grass.

  • Yasi_Gee on January 12, 2014, 16:48 GMT

    I think Cook needs a rest and nothing going for him at the moment. If he fails more (both his batting and team winning) then he is in danger of loosing his captaincy. England needs something different at the moment and give the captaincy to Morgen. Drop Root and Rankin, and bring Broad and a proper spinner.

  • on January 12, 2014, 16:18 GMT

    Cooker is in a Pressure Cooker now...... his batting is woeful in this series. Really, some miracle is needed to turn the screw back.

  • on January 12, 2014, 15:52 GMT

    Dear Cookie I am so sad that you being an English cricketer moreover being the captain do not know the decision for the benefit of the doubt ...funny .....better think of a settled team with good fielding skills and support your fast bowlers to take wickets than to expecting batsmen to keep quiet and go with singles ...

  • Brett_in_China on January 12, 2014, 15:26 GMT

    Obviously, the umpires didn't see it the same way, in REAL TIME. They wanted it checked. England 2/22 - Australia 2/222 (OK, I know the 2nd wicket fell earlier than that, but that was still the score). Think that highlights the problem. Not whether Cook thinks Warner should have been out. Finch SHOULD have been out on 8. That's your problem, Cookie, not the umpires.

  • Living_It on January 12, 2014, 14:44 GMT

    Compared to other catches (Steve Smith in last ashes test at Lord's particularly comes to mind, also Justin Langer catching Vaughn at Adelaide in 2006)that the third umpire haven't paid, this had to be given not out.

  • on January 12, 2014, 14:38 GMT

    One of those things, really. No one can be blamed. It was actually nice to see everyone accept it calmly and Warner, in particular, showing a lot of maturity, firstly by willing to walk and, after the decision, offering a pat on the back to Butler.

  • on January 12, 2014, 14:15 GMT

    A squad full of 6'6" quick men and spinners with no control -none of whom the management will actually play in a match. Borthwick, Tredwell, Finn. Have to wonder what sort of messed up thinking lead to having these on the tour. Just how many well paid drinks carriers and net bowlers do England need?

    Decent effort by most of England rookies. Let down by those more experienced players (yet again) - most of the seniors - Cooke, Bell and Bresnan in particular - should have been sent home straight after the ashes - they are clearly "shot"

    Jordan, Ballance, Root, Buttler, Stokes look like the future. Rankin looks like Andy Caddick reincarnated with his "pacey when short - floaty when full" issues. Maybe that's something he can overcome. He looks knackered after 1 over though.

    Giving Jordan, Balance, Buttler, Woakes and Finn a few games now will likely reap more long term benefits than sticking with Bresnan's village "pace" bowling or Rankins slow half volleys or slappable long hops.

  • AidanFX on January 12, 2014, 13:44 GMT

    Lean towards Cook on this one regarding Warner. Although I understand why it was overturned (though it in all likelihood was a clean catch). It was quite Nobel of Warner to walk straight off - isn't it worth the umpire backing the fielder and batsmen in such a scenario (even if he (umpire) is understandably uncertain).

  • on January 12, 2014, 13:18 GMT

    Re Jos Buttlers catch, not out, the ball bounced off the ground into his gloves, no big deal, I don't blame Buttler at all. Cook, stick to fixing up your batting mate, your focus is clearly not on the ball!!!!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on January 12, 2014, 13:18 GMT

    Re Jos Buttlers catch, not out, the ball bounced off the ground into his gloves, no big deal, I don't blame Buttler at all. Cook, stick to fixing up your batting mate, your focus is clearly not on the ball!!!!

  • AidanFX on January 12, 2014, 13:44 GMT

    Lean towards Cook on this one regarding Warner. Although I understand why it was overturned (though it in all likelihood was a clean catch). It was quite Nobel of Warner to walk straight off - isn't it worth the umpire backing the fielder and batsmen in such a scenario (even if he (umpire) is understandably uncertain).

  • on January 12, 2014, 14:15 GMT

    A squad full of 6'6" quick men and spinners with no control -none of whom the management will actually play in a match. Borthwick, Tredwell, Finn. Have to wonder what sort of messed up thinking lead to having these on the tour. Just how many well paid drinks carriers and net bowlers do England need?

    Decent effort by most of England rookies. Let down by those more experienced players (yet again) - most of the seniors - Cooke, Bell and Bresnan in particular - should have been sent home straight after the ashes - they are clearly "shot"

    Jordan, Ballance, Root, Buttler, Stokes look like the future. Rankin looks like Andy Caddick reincarnated with his "pacey when short - floaty when full" issues. Maybe that's something he can overcome. He looks knackered after 1 over though.

    Giving Jordan, Balance, Buttler, Woakes and Finn a few games now will likely reap more long term benefits than sticking with Bresnan's village "pace" bowling or Rankins slow half volleys or slappable long hops.

  • on January 12, 2014, 14:38 GMT

    One of those things, really. No one can be blamed. It was actually nice to see everyone accept it calmly and Warner, in particular, showing a lot of maturity, firstly by willing to walk and, after the decision, offering a pat on the back to Butler.

  • Living_It on January 12, 2014, 14:44 GMT

    Compared to other catches (Steve Smith in last ashes test at Lord's particularly comes to mind, also Justin Langer catching Vaughn at Adelaide in 2006)that the third umpire haven't paid, this had to be given not out.

  • Brett_in_China on January 12, 2014, 15:26 GMT

    Obviously, the umpires didn't see it the same way, in REAL TIME. They wanted it checked. England 2/22 - Australia 2/222 (OK, I know the 2nd wicket fell earlier than that, but that was still the score). Think that highlights the problem. Not whether Cook thinks Warner should have been out. Finch SHOULD have been out on 8. That's your problem, Cookie, not the umpires.

  • on January 12, 2014, 15:52 GMT

    Dear Cookie I am so sad that you being an English cricketer moreover being the captain do not know the decision for the benefit of the doubt ...funny .....better think of a settled team with good fielding skills and support your fast bowlers to take wickets than to expecting batsmen to keep quiet and go with singles ...

  • on January 12, 2014, 16:18 GMT

    Cooker is in a Pressure Cooker now...... his batting is woeful in this series. Really, some miracle is needed to turn the screw back.

  • Yasi_Gee on January 12, 2014, 16:48 GMT

    I think Cook needs a rest and nothing going for him at the moment. If he fails more (both his batting and team winning) then he is in danger of loosing his captaincy. England needs something different at the moment and give the captaincy to Morgen. Drop Root and Rankin, and bring Broad and a proper spinner.

  • on January 12, 2014, 16:52 GMT

    To me.. I could see part of the ball touching the grass and no sign of finger under it.. If I am not wrong any part of the ball touching the ground is not a catch.... don't know what the commentators were on about.. As soon as I saw the replay I said Not Out... and commentators were going thats clearly out the bump is off his finger.. I could not see a finger, but i could definetely see the ball touching the grass.