• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

17 years ago today..this happened

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Swervy said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/9/newsid_2536000/2536829.stm

Cant beleive its 17 years ago.

On the video clip, it has that Yousuf guy claiming that 'catch' ....if anyone complains about players not walking etc today, all that pales compared to that bit of cheating.

maybe things are better these days!!! (???)
If the video clip is of Yousuf claiming a catch off Botham that had bounced, that was in a different series! England were in the field when the Shakoor Rana affair took off. IIRC Rana was prepared to go back into the field the following day until Javed Miandad persuaded him otherwise. Happy days. Not.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
On the video clip, it has that Yousuf guy claiming that 'catch' ....if anyone complains about players not walking etc today, all that pales compared to that bit of cheating.
So claiming a catch that you know hasn't carried is worse cheating than not walking when you know perfectly well you're out...
How does that work, then?
 

Swervy

International Captain
wpdavid said:
If the video clip is of Yousuf claiming a catch off Botham that had bounced, that was in a different series! England were in the field when the Shakoor Rana affair took off. IIRC Rana was prepared to go back into the field the following day until Javed Miandad persuaded him otherwise. Happy days. Not.
yeah I know its a diferent series...that video clip doesnt have footage of the finger wagging and all that by rana and gatting...it does have Broad not walking off though :D
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
So claiming a catch that you know hasn't carried is worse cheating than not walking when you know perfectly well you're out...
How does that work, then?

mmm...fairly good question I guess....I guess the batsman isnt trying to disguise the fact he has hit it or not, its the umpires decision really...i dont think the batsman is trying to deceive the ump, he is just letting the ump do his job

With taking a 'catch ' like that, Yousuf was trying it on when he thought the umpire couldnt see it, he was deceiving the umpire, and I think that makes it a hell of a lot more serious.
 

Tony Blade

U19 Cricketer
Wasnt he also 'letting the umpire do his job'. When a player refuses to walk when he knows hes out, isnt he also deceiving the umpire? Who defines what the umpires job is, then? Both players are doing it deliberately.
Id like to make it clear that I do no condone his actions, though.
 

Swervy

International Captain
mmm..i am suffering from the flu big time at the moment..cant get my brain into the correct gear..cant think of good answers..will be back after comsumption of 9 packets of Lemsip and a chest full of Vicks vaporub
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Swervy said:
yeah I know its a diferent series...that video clip doesnt have footage of the finger wagging and all that by rana and gatting...it does have Broad not walking off though :D
I haven't seen the Broad incident for ages, so that might be worth watching. Mind you, that was in the test before the Rana episode, but you probably knew that.
 

Swervy

International Captain
wpdavid said:
I haven't seen the Broad incident for ages, so that might be worth watching. Mind you, that was in the test before the Rana episode, but you probably knew that.
its all very fresh in my mind..thats what is astonishing..it doesnt seem like 17 years ago
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Swervy said:
its all very fresh in my mind..thats what is astonishing..it doesnt seem like 17 years ago
Yeah, it's a worry, isn't it. Not that I remember seeing very much of it - just brief bits on the news, I guess. Looking back, it's amazing that Broad got off so lightly, however strong feelings were at the time. Possibly not the likeliest candidate to become a test referee.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Tony Blade said:
Wasnt he also 'letting the umpire do his job'. When a player refuses to walk when he knows hes out, isnt he also deceiving the umpire? Who defines what the umpires job is, then? Both players are doing it deliberately.
Id like to make it clear that I do no condone his actions, though.
I'm interested, myself, as to who decided what the Umpire's "job" was.
As far as I'm aware, it's the player's job to play the game in it's Spirit - and that means being honest in my book, whether it's batsman or fielder.
Either way, you are trying to gain something that is not yours (and you're certainly deceiving the Umpire in both cases - because if he knew what you knew he'd give the decision the opposite way to the way you're trying to get it given) and IMO that is cheating, whoever does it.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
it does have Broad not walking off though :D
Does it have him smashing down the stumps by any chance?
(The thing won't play for my computer, BTW)
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
Tony Blade said:
Wasnt he also 'letting the umpire do his job'. When a player refuses to walk when he knows hes out, isnt he also deceiving the umpire? Who defines what the umpires job is, then? Both players are doing it deliberately.
Id like to make it clear that I do no condone his actions, though.
I personally think that claiming a catch that you know you didn't take is definitely worse than not walking. As to letting the umpire do his job, the batsman is standing, waiting for the umpire to make their decision. The player who knowingly claims a catch they didn't take is appealing to the umpire to make an incorrect decision in their favor. More actual (deceptive) influence is coming from the fielder than from the batsman in these examples.

But Broad's refusal to leave the crease when the umpire has GIVEN him out is worse than both, IMO.
 

Camel56

Banned
Chris Broad the match referee and former English test player? Interesting.
His son was two years below me at school in Brisbane. Brilliant batsmen as well and will probably make his first class debut for QLD sometime this summer.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Slow Love™ said:
I personally think that claiming a catch that you know you didn't take is definitely worse than not walking. As to letting the umpire do his job, the batsman is standing, waiting for the umpire to make their decision. The player who knowingly claims a catch they didn't take is appealing to the umpire to make an incorrect decision in their favor. More actual (deceptive) influence is coming from the fielder than from the batsman in these examples.
How is someone standing his ground having gloved to short-leg not appealing to the Umpire to make an incorrect decision in his favour?
Why is he "waiting" and not trying to cheat?
But Broad's refusal to leave the crease when the umpire has GIVEN him out is worse than both, IMO.
It's dissent, and unless he's walking every time he knows he's out he hasn't got a leg to stand on.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
Richard said:
How is someone standing his ground having gloved to short-leg not appealing to the Umpire to make an incorrect decision in his favour?
Why is he "waiting" and not trying to cheat?
Because there's still an ambiguity as to intention. There's the potential to glove/edge a ball without knowing it. If they know they have, then I agree it's no great shakes, but I'm simply saying that claiming a catch and deliberately creating a situation for the umpire to resolve is worse. I'm not saying that the batsman isn't doing anything wrong. Although I will say that there is clearly a difference in how the cricketing community over decades has treated not walking versus claiming a catch you knowingly didn't take.



Richard said:
It's dissent, and unless he's walking every time he knows he's out he hasn't got a leg to stand on.
I don't think I'm disagreeing that it's dissent. I said that what Broad was doing was worse, because he's openly defying the authorities of the game.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Slow Love™ said:
Because there's still an ambiguity as to intention. There's the potential to glove/edge a ball without knowing it. If they know they have, then I agree it's no great shakes, but I'm simply saying that claiming a catch and deliberately creating a situation for the umpire to resolve is worse. I'm not saying that the batsman isn't doing anything wrong. Although I will say that there is clearly a difference in how the cricketing community over decades has treated not walking versus claiming a catch you knowingly didn't take.
Do you really think it's possible to get a clip on the glove or outside edge and not feel it?
Because I don't, personally.
The human body - especially the hand - is incredibly sensitive.
Possibly every now and then you'll get a nick that even the batsman doesn't pick-up. But that's maybe 1 in 1,000,000.
I know the authorities have always treated one form of cheating differently to the other - and that's just my point - they are náive to do so.
I don't think I'm disagreeing that it's dissent. I said that what Broad was doing was worse, because he's openly defying the authorities of the game.
Yes, yes, I know - I wasn't disagreeing with you, sorry.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
Do you really think it's possible to get a clip on the glove or outside edge and not feel it?
Because I don't, personally.
The human body - especially the hand - is incredibly sensitive.
Possibly every now and then you'll get a nick that even the batsman doesn't pick-up. But that's maybe 1 in 1,000,000.
I know the authorities have always treated one form of cheating differently to the other - and that's just my point - they are náive to do so.

Yes, yes, I know - I wasn't disagreeing with you, sorry.

just written a long post explaining why I dont agree with you Richard..but it didnt go through...so I will say,with regards to nicks, I dont think you really know what you are on about
 

Top