Refreshing as Australian umpire Daryl Harper's admission was that he got it wrong when denying New Zealand's first over appeal against Australian opener Justin Langer on day one of the first Test, it does raise some interesting questions.

Langer hadn't scored at the time and was trapped in front, being hit on his back leg, below the top of the stumps by Chris Cairns. The appeal was turned down although the only person who didn't think he was out at the time was Harper.

And when he got a look at the replay he made the view on the dismissal unanimous.

Too late for him, too late for New Zealand.

By the time Langer's innings had finished he had 104 runs beside his name and had shared a record opening stand for New Zealand against Australia of 224 runs.

The concern, in Harper admitting his mistake at the end of the second day, has to be regarding his position in the remainder of the match.

As it was, his first significant decision on the third day, involved deciding whether Brett Lee had hit a ball from Cairns that doubled him up as it jagged back. It rattled something and the Kiwis appealed for the catch taken by wicket-keeper Adam Parore.

Harper gave the decision in favour of them but the replays this time showed Harper was wrong again as it looked like the top of Lee's pads were hit.

Two wrong decisions and while they might have been balanced to both teams, the second didn't make it right. Nor did it do anything for the accuracy of his decision-making.

While no international umpire would ever admit to making up for a previous wrong decision, making an admission as Harper did leaves him wide open to criticism.

Then, when the Australians go up for an appeal against Matthew Bell in Jason Gillespie's first over and is given not out, is there an element of payback for New Zealand?

These are all unfair summations, of course. Replays showed that the ball would have bounced over the stumps in Bell's case. Given the two previous decisions was it good luck or good management in Harper's case?

The decisions are made after reflection, something Harper doesn't have time for.

But, by making his comments at the end of the second day, Harper left himself wide open to conjecture, and that surely cannot be in his own best interests, or the best interests of the game being played.

While an admission provides good copy, surely it would have been far better to have retained his own counsel, or at least waited until the end of the match, to leave himself free of further comment regarding his performance.

It is not the first occasion in recent times that umpires have "come clean", but are they really doing a service to the game or themselves?

© CricInfo