Walking

[KennyD]

I used to walk, all the time, and i knew umpires werent going to give me out as well. But then i started being given out when I wasnt. And, this really peed me too, this one umpire who I had for evry game, and who also happpened to be a 1st Grade umpire, had an annoying habit of when i walked, he would put his finger up well after i started walking, just so he wouldn`t seem like an idiot. God i hated him

So nowadays, i never walk, never ever ever. Coz that umpire ruined walking for me, and I do believe things even out over time.

 

[honestbharani]

I cant see anyone at this time in the game walking at every instance, not even Gilchrist. Its all well and good to be idealistic about morals and whatnot, but the real test is consistancy. Its going to be interesting to see what these players do in different circumstances.

Nope, I haven't seen Lara stay there after he has nicked them. Heck, I remember once when an iffy catch of his was taken and the umpire signalled for the replay. But Lara walked upto Mark Waugh and asked him if he had taken the catch. He said yes and Lara walked away. I definitely think he is probably the only one who has walked everytime.

 

[age_master]

personally i walk given the oppportunity but i usually get a dodgy decision or get caught on the boundary anyway...

 

[Neil Pickup]

There is no way I would walk at 179/9 chasing 180, so there's no way I'll walk, ever.

 

[SJS]

I think there are very few who walk all the time and some who will NEVER walk.

But for most people , it is a spontaneous thing. Sometimes it happens some times it doesnt. You just do it. You donr debate the moral issues in that fraction of a second. It just happens. But just because it doesnt happen all the time, its not hypocrisy or cheating just as when you do its not dissent.

Whats despicable is pretending. There are batsmen who are plumb LBW and have shown the bat edge even as the fielders appealed and have been shown by TV replays to be totally wrong. This is not right. When a batsman edges he invariably knows.

Similarly, fielders going up spontaneously in appeal when a batsman is beaten can and wil happen this is not cheating. Whats wrong is the incessant 'folow through' appealing and facial expressions as if great injustice has been done that is nothing less than wanting to gain undue advantage by pressurising the umpire.

It is an idylic situation that all batsmen should walk all the time and no one should really expect that too happen let alone ask for it on moral grounds but to castigate batsmen for walking (even if they dont do it all the time) is a very strange attitude just as is condoning incessant pressurising of the umpires by the players even when knowing they are wrong on the grounds of its being a part-of-the-game.

A clear distinction needs to be made here.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I those guilty of sharp practice are "selective" walkers. He was a little before my time, but apparently Colin Cowdrey was a sod for that.

At least if one never walks one can take the rough with the smooth.

 

[SJS]

I those guilty of sharp practice are "selective" walkers. He was a little before my time, but apparently Colin Cowdrey was a sod for that.

At least if one never walks one can take the rough with the smooth.

Can you say with conviction, any batsman will walk 'selectively' by intent ? If so why ? Is there nothing at stake for a batsman to walk in a test match ?

Did the Australians (and Indians) have nothing at stake in the last test when they walked ??

 

[BoyBrumby]

Can you say with conviction, any batsman will walk 'selectively' by intent ? If so why ? Is there nothing at stake for a batsman to walk in a test match ?

Did the Australians (and Indians) have nothing at stake in the last test when they walked ??

I can't say for certain any batsman has ever done it, unless he himself admits such. One's motives & feelings are one's own, after all!

But surely you would say a batter would be less likely to walk at (to use Neil's example) 179-9 needing 180, than at 179-1 needing 180? One would possibly to disappointed at getting out so close to the target, but it (almost certainly) wouldn't cost one's team the game.

And of course the Aussies & the Indians had something at stake! All the more reason to applaud Gilly, Kasper et al!

 

[SJS]

But surely you would say a batter would be less likely to walk at (to use Neil's example) 179-9 needing 180, than at 179-1 needing 180? One would possibly to disappointed at getting out so close to the target, but it (almost certainly) wouldn't cost one's team the game.

So what you are saying is morals can be stretched only upto a point. I asked a friend of mine once if he would steel from the govenment (committing financial fraud to avoid paying duties/taxes etc) he said no. Then he added unless there was a huge amount of money at stake This guy is a millionaire many times over. But he was being honest and ity applies to most people.

Reminded me of the movie, Indecent Proplosal

Now we are not talking selective walking but selective morals

I did not mean that. I was refering to the sudden/unplanned spontaneous walking which is what happens in most cases. You are talking of a calculated decision clearly with a determination to somehow gain an advantage because the stakes are high enough to forsake morals.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I did not mean that. I was refering to the sudden/unplanned spontaneous walking which is what happens in most cases. You are talking of a calculated decision clearly with a determination to somehow gain an advantage because the stakes are high enough to forsake morals.

It would be nice to think that all walkers are spontaneous, but (being possibly of a more cynical disposition) the recent spate suggests to me some forethought has gone in.

Unless, of course, the shining moral example of the initial walker has proved contagious!

 

[marc71178]

If that means giving the third umpire the ability to override the decisions of the field umpires, or using more camera's, more sensitive 'snickometers' or improved versions of Hawkeye then so be it.

I think the second half of this quote is the key issue regarding technology...

 

[marc71178]

There is no way I would walk at 179/9 chasing 180, so there's no way I'll walk, ever.

Mind you I guess the only time that would help the team is if it's the last ball of the over, or you'll be out without addition to the score anyway

 

[KennyD]

Reminded me of the movie, Indecent Proplosal QUOTE]

I liked that movie....ohh......Demi Moore....

sorry about that, its hard to contain my feelings...

 

[Tim]

Neil hit a good point.

Would Gilchrist (or any other player for that matter) walk if Australia were 199/9 needing 1 run to win a World Cup final?
I would say unlikely because the rest of the team would hate him for a long time.
So Gilchrist has set a standard, he must now pretty much walk everytime he know's he's out.

 

[shaka]

A local sports commentator on the radio says that the rule is "only out when indicated by the umpire"

 

[cricket player]

Neil hit a good point.

Would Gilchrist (or any other player for that matter) walk if Australia were 199/9 needing 1 run to win a World Cup final?
I would say unlikely because the rest of the team would hate him for a long time.
So Gilchrist has set a standard, he must now pretty much walk everytime he know's he's out.

will i would not walk away i will wait for the damn umpire to make a decision whether it is out or not........ if you walk away then umpires will be useless they are there to make a decision whether it is out or not.......

 

[Linda]

Neil hit a good point.

Would Gilchrist (or any other player for that matter) walk if Australia were 199/9 needing 1 run to win a World Cup final?
I would say unlikely because the rest of the team would hate him for a long time.

There is no way a I could see a player having the guts to do that. Someone said Lara walks every time... surely you couldnt say he'd walk in that situation.

 

[Mr Casson]

There is no way a I could see a player having the guts to do that. Someone said Lara walks every time... surely you couldnt say he'd walk in that situation.

I'm not so sure about that... Particularly for Gilchrist, who is a pretty down to earth sort of bloke.

I'm not saying that he would definitely walk in a situation where it would cost them the game, but whatever goes through his head just before he makes the decision to walk, if that went through his head in a really tight situation, there's no telling what he might decide.

And just before anyone says "but there is NO WAY he would walk needing 1 run to win", it is not an argument; it is no more credible than my argument. After all, it's all speculation.

 

[Linda]

Your telling me you could seriously see that happening?
I dont have that type of imagination, I'm afraid.

 

[Mr Casson]

Yeah, I suppose I am saying I can see it happening. What I'm not telling you, however, is that I think he would do it. I just don't think everyone can categorically say that he would never do it.