Walking

[Craig]

Do you think all batsmen should walk?

Personally the moment you walk once, you have to walk every single time, no matter the situtation otherwise you will look like a hypocrite.

Personally I would walk.

 

[Dasa]

I wouldn't walk. If you get a lucky break, so be it... sometimes you get some bad decisions as well, and you can't choose to sit around at the crease then.

 

[Jono]

The reason I would never walk is because I would be inconsistent. Usually I do feel the urge to walk when I know I hit the ball or something like that, but put me in a position when my team needs one run to win and there's 9 wickets down... well I wouldn't walk. In that case, like you said I'd be a hypocrite to walk at one time and not another.

Plus batsmen get many shoddy decisions against them through 'bull' appeals by bowlers which go their way. May as well be a two way street.

 

[shaka]

I noticed something in the NZ v Bangladesh game, although it was hard to tell, Fleming actually walked from the crease before looking at the umpire. Good sportsmanship, the main thing is getting the correct decision in the end.

 

[ijaz]

Walk or not to Walk

I think that you should walk if it is obvious that you are out or you are clear in your own head that you are gone.

 

[Eclipse]

Seems Gilchrist and Gillespie are walking every time they know they are out now days.

 

[Craig]

Hasn't Justin Langer started walking as well?

 

[honestbharani]

The one man who has always walked and yet, never seems to get all this publicity like some of the Aussies and Indians do, is Brian Lara.

 

[SJS]

I think batsmen should walk if they know they have nicked it. But if we really want to make the umpires job easier, it is much more important for the bowler and the fielders not to pressurise the umpire if and when they KNOW the batsman to be not out. This is the bigger problem for the umpires today .

The fact that there are those , and so many it seems, who feel batsmen should not walk, is a sign of the times. After all we do have people who openly, at least in our part of the world, talk against paying taxes against voting for a candidate in an election because he is too good to be a successful politician, of justifying police and buraucratic corruption (and worse) on the grounds of their not getting adequate salaries and so on !!

The arguments offered about it evening out in the end was originally offered not to justify not walking but to shut up the cribbers who complained of mistakes in umpiring.

Mistakes even out in the sense that if there are mistakes against India today, there will be mistakes that will benefit them tomorrow. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE RIGHT NOR DOES THIS MAKE ATTEMPT BY PLAYERS OR AUTHORITIES TO MINIMISE THE MISTAKES MISLPACED !!

No two mistakes can cancel each other out. They just add up !! Five mistakes against each team is ten mistakes and not zero.

Secondly, the impact of two mistakes can not be equated , even if they are in the same game.

Walking and not appealing unless you think you are right is what the players can do to help. The authorities have to think of what THEY can do in addition, technology or whatever.

 

[Western Warrior]

Personally, if a batsman genuinely believes he is out then I believe walking is something they should do irrespective of the umpires decision. A recently case was Kasprowicz who walked, despite the umpire who was in the process of giving him not out

However, with that said the issue to consistency needs to be raised. If your team is 3/382 with a lead of 100 and you think you have nicked an edge to the keeper then you would be more inclined to walk than if your team was 5/120 and chasing a large total!

Also, if as captain you remain at the crease knowing full well you got an edge you can have your position devalued if your vice-captain or another player walks under the very same circumstances.

In the end, personal decision aside I have to agree with Ricky Ponting who recently said that the players are there to play and the umpires are there to umpire. Neither is perfect but the umpires decision should be accepted as law whilst the players should simply concentrate on playing the game.

 

[JBH001]

No, never walk.

Its the umpires job to decide and make those decisions.

You take those breaks where you can get them.

 

[SJS]

No, never walk.

Its the umpires job to decide and make those decisions.

You take those breaks where you can get them.

There is no end to what can be justified by 'take where you can get them'
- a Jacob breaking the stumps with a hand that never had the ball but the umpire didnt know
- A footballing legend scoring with his arm and accepting the goal awarded because the refree did not know

If a football player can be given the yellow card for shamming an injury why should a cricketer be allowed to not just sham but be supported by saying 'take those breaks where you can get them'.

But as I said, its a sign of the times. Gilchrist said the other day that he was amazed that except for the umpires and two senior cricketers no one came and congratulated him on his walking.

 

[Western Warrior]

But as I said, its a sign of the times. Gilchrist said the other day that he was amazed that except for the umpires and two senior cricketers no one came and congratulated him on his walking.

With everything that has been said still difficult to come to a conclusion that satisfies everyone.

As an umpire I may feel agrieved that players are not willing to accept my verdict.

As a player I may feel under pressure to put honesty an integrity infront of a career which has taken a long time to establish and can end after a few bad performances.

You can bring technology into the equation. Cricket is a sport where things can happen quickly. To expect an umpire to consistently hear a faint nick in a loud stadium or to precisely judge when the bat touches the crease is sometimes expecting too much.

Traditionalists might say that, that is part of the game but if you want to totally (or nearly totally) eliminate human error from the game then greater reliance needs to be placed on technology to compliment the umpires out on the field.

 

[SJS]

As an umpire I may feel agrieved that players are not willing to accept my verdict.

.

Every umpire has come out in FAVOUR of walking even if it is different from the umpires decision including the two who stood in the second test. They do not think a player walking if he thinks it is out is dissent. They say, they MUST walk and make the umpires job easier.

 

[Linda]

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.

 

[marc71178]

I noticed something in the NZ v Bangladesh game, although it was hard to tell, Fleming actually walked from the crease before looking at the umpire. Good sportsmanship, the main thing is getting the correct decision in the end.

There was a lot of walking in the 2nd Test between India and Australia.

Some people decided that the umpires were to be blamed for it.

 

[Nate]

ahhh i know it means 1/100000000 of the international scene, but recently i have started to walk. late last year i was caught behind easily, but waited for the appeal and it was turned down. after that i just cant do it anymore... it seems so unfair. to tell the truth ive only had one scenario after that where i could have walked (and did) but when i know im out i cant just stay out there.

 

[Western Warrior]

As I said ealier this is an extremely difficult argument and one that shouldn't really be left up solely to the players or the umpires.

Cricket has come a long way and is now a international game which attracts large amounts of sponsorship money, television audiences and media attention. It also grants the players significant wealth and in some cases (Tendulkar, Lara etc) a superstar lifestyle.

However, the technological infrastructure seems mirred in the past. Rather than expect perfection from the umpires and unfailing honesty from the players (neither of which can be expected) the ICC should instead look at improving and supplementing the technology that currently exists to aid the umpires.

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.

Some will say that this degrades the authority and role of the umpires but if that is the case then so does a player walking even if the umpire is convinced the player is not out.

 

[SJS]

As I said ealier this is an extremely difficult argument and one that shouldn't really be left up solely to the players or the umpires.

Cricket has come a long way and is now a international game which attracts large amounts of sponsorship money, television audiences and media attention. It also grants the players significant wealth and in some cases (Tendulkar, Lara etc) a superstar lifestyle.

However, the technological infrastructure seems mirred in the past. Rather than expect perfection from the umpires and unfailing honesty from the players (neither of which can be expected) the ICC should instead look at improving and supplementing the technology that currently exists to aid the umpires.

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.

Some will say that this degrades the authority and role of the umpires but if that is the case then so does a player walking even if the umpire is convinced the player is not out.

I agree with that. It is totally unrealistic to expect all players to walk and unfair to castigate who dont.

What I disagree with is, the recent tendency to castigate players for walking !!

Inconsistency is not hypocrisy. hypocrisy is saying something and doing something quite different OR having one set of standars for one self and another for others.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I agree with walking morally 100%. Kudos to those who do.

But....

I think those who do are possibly shooting themselves in the foot. Fair play to Kasper for walking when dear old Shep was gonna give him not out, but the next time he's on the end of a duff decision he'll only have "one in the bank" morally speaking. He'll still be on the scorecard as out.