walk or not???

[Pratters]

It is important to note that umpires werent there when cricket initially started. Players agreed on decisions and took each others words for it.

Then the men came on for disputes and not making all decisions.

And then the modern game has seen umpires take all decisions and now ironically most decisions being taken away from them when we cant even take the word of a neutral as it may not be accurate for television replays.

Sure take the benefit of television replays and umpires for disputes but do you really need so many decisions to be made even by the umpire when a player knows he nicks it or any thing?

It is an idealistic scenario which is not going to happen but which is how we played our cricket in the back yard. If we were batting and heard the clink behind, we knew that was out and even if the bowlers didnt know it, we put declare it and that was that.

 

[Shounak]

When you play the game you accept the umpire being the final authority. He can make a decision which does not go in your favour, some times even very obvious mistakes. But he hasnt done it intentionally. It is just an error of judgement and it should be accepted with humility..

That was from the other thread started by CP.

But judging by this, shouldn't you take the good with the bad. Sometimes it goes your way, other times it doesn't. If the umpire (aka " the final authority") makes a decision, you should accept it. Maintain the same process, regardless of the outcome.

 

[Pratters]

That was from the other thread started by CP.

But judging by this, shouldn't you take the good with the bad. Sometimes it goes your way, other times it doesn't. If the umpire (aka " the final authority") makes a decision, you should accept it. Maintain the same process, regardless of the outcome.

Gavaskar usually treads on the same line. He says the batsmen have all the right not to walk. It all evens out in the end as some decisions go against you as well as a batsman.

What are we looking at? Suppose we know it is not out, why not bring it to the knowledge. Why not walk or inform the umpires (in no way disrespecting him or showing dissent). The umpire is ofcourse the final authority. If he feels otherwise, he may still allow a six instead of a 4.

Eventually when players show more honesty of purpose, the umpires will regard the words of the players ofcourse.

Idealistic indeed. I remmeber a tennis match which was played in very good spirit and its not uncommon in tennis to have players point out the ball was out of line or not out of line to the umpire which facilitates the right decision. It happens in cricket too when a fielder signals its a 6 and not a 4 some times. Is it logical that a batsman decides to be more greedy and and not walk when he knows he is out?

Its blatant cheating but every one does it so it has become a norm. Had it happened in a different age, not the age of WG when he is said to bat on and famously tell fielders the spectators are here to see me and not you!, but of an earlier age, when cricket was the gentlemans game in a lot more entirety, when players usually did walk, it would be a shocker for most cricket fans at that point of time.

 

[Swervy]

I beleive in the 60's when England were in SA, the South Africans actually took offense when an England batsman walked when the umpire didnt give it out

 

[Shounak]

What are we looking at? Suppose we know it is not out, why not bring it to the knowledge. Why not walk or inform the umpires (in no way disrespecting him or showing dissent). The umpire is ofcourse the final authority.

Try telling the umpire it wasn't actually out. It may sound good in theory. But in reality, very few umpires would take it the way it was intended (assuming you simply want to inform the umpire, nothing more). Most umpires would be furious and think you're just being a smart ****. No matter what your intentions were. Also can you imagine going and telling an umpire that with with millions of people watching your every move.

If he feels otherwise, he may still allow a six instead of a 4.

This one's turned into a runout in terms of decision making. The umpires don't even take the fielders word for it when they dive to save a ball. Whenever they dive, or there is a doubtful boundary, the umpire whips out a walkie talkie.

We can put all this down to the evolution of cricket. I see the validity in all of your points but it just can't work. There's simply too much at stake. Cricket isn't just a gentleman's game. It's a career which is started from an early age. It must be treated accordingly.

 

[Pratters]

We can put all this down to the evolution of cricket. I see the validity in all of your points but it just can't work. There's simply too much at stake. Cricket isn't just a gentleman's game. It's a career which is started from an early age. It must be treated accordingly.

Ofcourse we want right decisions to not hurt the batsman's career. But when a batsman doesnt walk on being nicked doesnt it hurt the bowler's career?

In my opinion its simple : A batsman knows he is out and doesnt walk - it means he is cheating.

It happens every time in international cricket so it is accepted by one and all but it repulses me always.

Maybe I am too honest, maybe I am too idealistic and unrealistic but thats the way I feel.

 

[Swervy]

Ofcourse we want right decisions to not hurt the batsman's career. But when a batsman doesnt walk on being nicked doesnt it hurt the bowler's career?

In my opinion its simple : A batsman knows he is out and doesnt walk - it means he is cheating.

It happens every time in international cricket so it is accepted by one and all but it repulses me always.

Maybe I am too honest, maybe I am too idealistic and unrealistic but thats the way I feel.

but is it cheating?

 

[Pratters]

but is it cheating?

For me it is when you know you are out and still bat on.

 

[Shounak]

Ofcourse we want right decisions to not hurt the batsman's career. But when a batsman doesnt walk on being nicked doesnt it hurt the bowler's career?

In my opinion its simple : A batsman knows he is out and doesnt walk - it means he is cheating.

It happens every time in international cricket so it is accepted by one and all but it repulses me always.

Maybe I am too honest, maybe I am too idealistic and unrealistic but thats the way I feel.

Bill Lawrie was commenting during an Aus-Pak match that the Aussies were appealing like crazy at every little chance they could get, so that the umpires would feel more pressured to give them a decision in their favour. Do you consider this to be cheating?

I disagree with the term cheating in this particular context though. Unethical, immoral or possibly amoral, but not cheating. It's simply abiding by what the umpire has said.

If it were cheating, the ICC would have penalties in place.

--- EDIT--
Is it also cheating if the bowler wrongfully appeals.. The bowler may think it would've missed off, but appealing anyway. I would categorise Gillespie's appeal against Tendulkar in Brisbane (pretty sure) as this.

What about if a bowler knows he overstepped the mark and he gets a dismissal from it (not run out). Does he have an obligation to tell the umpire? Would not doing so be considered cheating?

 

[Pratters]

Bill Lawrie was commenting during an Aus-Pak match that the Aussies were appealing like crazy at every little chance they could get, so that the umpires would feel more pressured to give them a decision in their favour. Do you consider this to be cheating?

Yes. If its appealing knowing its not out its cheating for me.

If it were cheating, the ICC would have penalties in place.

Not necessarily. I mentioned it before and I will mention this again on the post because no one refuted it. Ridley Jacobs was fined when he didnt say it was not a catch when he saw it wasnt and was given out by the umpire. How is it dissimilar to a batsman staying on the wicket.

In law the clause of misrepresentation is present. Isnt this misrepresentation when a batsman simply keeps batting on.

 

[Pratters]

What about if a bowler knows he overstepped the mark and he gets a dismissal from it (not run out). Does he have an obligation to tell the umpire? Would not doing so be considered cheating?

Yes it would be considered cheating for me.

 

[Shounak]

Not necessarily. I mentioned it before and I will mention this again on the post because no one refuted it. Ridley Jacobs was fined when he didnt say it was not a catch when he saw it wasnt and was given out by the umpire. How is it dissimilar to a batsman staying on the wicket.

In law the clause of misrepresentation is present. Isnt this misrepresentation when a batsman simply keeps batting on.

What Ridley did is an active misrepresentation. It's the same as diving over a ball and claiming a catch. Before I go into it, can you just clarify something for me. Did he actively appeal for the fake catch? Or did he just stand there blankly whilst everyone else in the team appealled?

 

[sledger]

Yes it would be considered cheating for me.

you should say that it is the responsibility of the umpire to spot the bowler stepping over the mark and therefore its his error and you cannot be blamed for capitalising on it, essentially its the same arguement as what would you do if you found a £10000000 cheque on the floor in the street, do you turn it in to the poice? or do you keep it for yourself?

 

[Pratters]

you should say that it is the responsibility of the umpire to spot the bowler stepping over the mark and therefore its his error and you cannot be blamed for capitalising on it

The question is are you there to win fairly or by all means. Teams usually go for all means.

 

[Pratters]

What Ridley did is an active misrepresentation. It's the same as diving over a ball and claiming a catch. Before I go into it, can you just clarify something for me. Did he actively appeal for the fake catch? Or did he just stand there blankly whilst everyone else in the team appealled?

I think he did claim the catch. Okay I see where you are going here and I see your point that if he doesnt claim it then its not misrepresentation.

But the scenarios of the bowler appealing knowing batsman is not out, bastman staying on the wicket etc. have players arguing the umpire is there to give the decision.

The umpire has the final word but he is there to facilitate the decision. The puclic want the correct decision to be made every time. This is why the ICC is going for more technology usage every day. It would indeed help the decision process if the players dont act so shallowly losing the larger concept why sport is played - to play hard, to play fair and then if you lose so be it.

 

[sledger]

The question is are you there to win fairly or by all means. Teams usually go for all means.

i know, unfortunately that is often the way in the world today, personally i myself would like to think that i would walk if i knew that i was out, i would rather not win at all unless i did it fairly, but to be honest if england require one run to win the 5th test of the ashes series against australia with one wicket in hand and lets say hoggard edges the ball through to gilchrist and it is missed by the umpire, then hoggard gets the run that wins the series then i wouldnt really care in fact it would make the victory of the series all the more satisfying actually.

 

[Shounak]

I think he did claim the catch. Okay I see where you are going here and I see your point that if he doesnt claim it then its not misrepresentation.

But the scenarios of the bowler appealing knowing batsman is not out, bastman staying on the wicket etc. have players arguing the umpire is there to give the decision.

The umpire has the final word but he is there to facilitate the decision. The puclic want the correct decision to be made every time. This is why the ICC is going for more technology usage every day. It would indeed help the decision process if the players dont act so shallowly losing the larger concept why sport is played - to play hard, to play fair and then if you lose so be it.

Umpires do more then facilitate the decision making process. They are the decision makers. They make the decisions and "lay the smack down". Simple as that. There's very very rarely a congregation of all the team members to decide the fate of a batsman (like in Symonds' case).

 

[vic_orthdox]

Have a look at it from the elite athlete's perspective. They train twelve months of the year on their technical, mental and physical aspects of their game, looking to gain every advantage possible over their opponents. They put in all the hard yards in preparation to get that one tiny little bit of advantage over their competitors, and suddenly they are given a second chance after a mistake, and you expect them to forfeit this advantage (and in some examples, maybe even their professional livelihood) upon walking? Not likely.

 

[Pratters]

Have a look at it from the elite athlete's perspective..

Whats the use of a livelihood if it is not fairly earned. But yes it is too idealistic a view. In all walks of life, whether sports, business or any profession, people wouldnt mind earning more even if it is a bit unfairly.

 

[Pratters]

Umpires do more then facilitate the decision making process. They are the decision makers. They make the decisions and "lay the smack down". Simple as that. There's very very rarely a congregation of all the team members to decide the fate of a batsman (like in Symonds' case).

Yes the have the responsibility to make the correct decisions and they can do it better if players help them with more honesty.