walk or not???

[Swervy]

And some members who are batsman here knows that I am talking about,

Hey I am a batsman, and I know how it feels. I have, from memory, only been out 3 times EVER LBW. Two of those were in the space of about 3 weeks, with the same umpire...first 'LBW' was a thich inside edge onto my foot...2 games later, I was about 8 yards down the track (I was doing a bit of a Hayden walk down the pitch), the ball hit me on my thigh, and I actually had to run back to my crease to avoid what I thought could be a runout..only to be given LBW,

Did I think it was fair? Nope....Did I think that umpire was a cheat?? Yep (and not just for the reasons of him giving me out)...Did I hang around the crease protesting? Nope, coz it would have made me look like a schoolkid and would have done nothing to alter the decision...Did I let the umpire know how I felt? Damn right I did, the flurry of expletives back in the pavilion at JUST about the right volume helped...and I decided not to shake his hand at the end of the game...slightly childish , but I thought I needed to do that. It still looks better than throwing a hissy fit on the field of play

 

[cricket player]

no its not fair...but still no excuse to hang around the crease for ages protesting the lack of justice in this world.

May I also suggest that you actually hung around the crease not for the reason of ensuring future justice for all other batsmen (that certainly sounds like a noble thing to do of course) but in fact you wanted to have a bit more of a bat..in your heart of hearts can you honestly tell me that you were thinking of the other batsmen it could happen to right at that moment?

Nop because I wasnt in form at that period of time,

first game 8 how out Run out
Second game 0 how out Trying to hit the ball out of the ground got caught near the boundry.

Third game,how out,The umpire gives me a wrong decision Ibw,
I had a reason to be mad

 

[Neil Pickup]

Missed Aus v Ban then?

No, I was attempting humour. Not well, as it proved...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If I was a batsman at Test or County level my attitude would be very simple.
I, as a batsman, will walk when I know I'm out if you, as a bowler, don't appeal when you know I'm not out.
Unfortunately such an agreement will never happen.

 

[luckyeddie]

If I was a batsman at Test or County level my attitude would be very simple.
I, as a batsman, will walk when I know I'm out if you, as a bowler, don't appeal when you know I'm not out.
Unfortunately such an agreement will never happen.

Can I steal that?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Can I steal that?

You can use it, but only if you say "Simon Says" first.

 

[marc71178]

Hell even if it was going to hit the stumps he shouldnt have given me out beause it was going down the leg clearly

If it was going to hit the stumps then it clearly wasn't going down legside.

 

[cricket player]

Hitting the leg stump,You can appreciat an umpire who doesnt give you,

 

[luckyeddie]

Hitting the leg stump,You can appreciat an umpire who doesnt give you,

If it pitched on or outside off stump and struck you in front, then even if the umpire was 'only' sure that it was going to hit the leg stump, I'm afraid out you were (look in the scorebook if you want confirmation of that small fact).

Funnily enough, there are three stumps, and it counts if the ball strikes any one of them (unless your name is Andrew Symonds or Mohammad Ashraful, of course).

 

[marc71178]

Of course you can if it was going to hit the stumps.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In my opinion no one should ever be given out LBW because there is no way an umpire can be 100% sure that the ball had it hit the stumps would have dislodged a bail.

 

[luckyeddie]

In my opinion no one should ever be given out LBW because there is no way an umpire can be 100% sure that the ball had it hit the stumps would have dislodged a bail.

I'm inclined to agree with that statement after having seen the aforementioned incidents this last week or so.

 

[Pratters]

In my opinion no one should ever be given out LBW because there is no way an umpire can be 100% sure that the ball had it hit the stumps would have dislodged a bail.

And then it would turn to football wouldnt it?

 

[Dasa]

No, I was attempting humour. Not well, as it proved...

I though maybe you were since you were unlikely to make such a mistake. Perhaps an emoticon would've made it clear.

 

[cricket player]

In my opinion no one should ever be given out LBW because there is no way an umpire can be 100% sure that the ball had it hit the stumps would have dislodged a bail.

I disagree,

With out lbw a batsman can block the ball with his leg with out worrying that the umpire might give him out,Wont help the bowler at all,

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I disagree,

With out lbw a batsman can block the ball with his leg with out worrying that the umpire might give him out,Wont help the bowler at all,

Maybe my post was lacking an emoticon , it wasn't a serious suggestion. You could argue that if the ball is going to hit the stumps then it should be out irrespective of whether the ball pitched outside the leg stump or hit outside the line of off-stump.

 

[honestbharani]

Everyone has the right to feel angry about a wrong decision. But no-one has the right to make a scene about it. That's dissent.

All players should be punished for dissent. Regardless of their stance on walking.

So basically, Gilly showing dissent shouldn't be treated any differently to Tugga doing the same.

Well, in a way, u can argue that way but he really shouldn't be saying stuff like "Indian bowlers were getting too much upset when close decisions were not given in their favour, even though they got a few which were obviously not out" in his columns, right? Because, he is basically doing the same thing, showing dissent when he is given out wrongly and yet he himself has benefitted when the umps have given him not out when he actually was.

 

[Shounak]

Well, in a way, u can argue that way but he really shouldn't be saying stuff like "Indian bowlers were getting too much upset when close decisions were not given in their favour, even though they got a few which were obviously not out" in his columns, right? Because, he is basically doing the same thing, showing dissent when he is given out wrongly and yet he himself has benefitted when the umps have given him not out when he actually was.

I don't know about these columns but I assume you're talking about Steve Waugh? I don't condone bitching about that sort of a thing. But it's a lot different to standing your ground or showing dissent. I see dissent as doing something brazen, like throwing off your gloves in protest or showing your anger then and there, or in the near future (complaining at a press conference about particular decisions). Writing about your personally held beliefs, after you've retired isn't dissent in my eyes. It simply comes across as bitterness to the audience reading that sort of diatribe and noone has the power to stop it.

I'm saying this because I generally associate crimes (dissent) with the punishment (taking match fee's). Most cases aren't that black and white, but I see this one in that light.

But if you're simply showing me incongruities in the Waugh's arguments, then I agree.

 

[Shounak]

Maybe my post was lacking an emoticon , it wasn't a serious suggestion. You could argue that if the ball is going to hit the stumps then it should be out irrespective of whether the ball pitched outside the leg stump or hit outside the line of off-stump.

I wouldn't mind one LBW law being changed. The law that says if the ball hits the batsman on the full, the umpire has to assume it would've followed according to that same trajectory. So if a ball with as much spin as Warne's Gatting ball hit a batsman on the full, in line with the stumps, it is automatically out. I think the umpires should be given more discretion in this matter. The umpires generally have a good feel as to how the ball's moving, according to the conditions of the ball and pitch.

Hogg's dismissal of Geraint Jones in the final a few days ago mildly highlighted this point. I'm not sure that Shep would've given that out if he had more discretionary power.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I wouldn't mind one LBW law being changed. The law that says if the ball hits the batsman on the full, the umpire has to assume it would've followed according to that same trajectory. So if a ball with as much spin as Warne's Gatting ball hit a batsman on the full, in line with the stumps, it is automatically out. I think the umpires should be given more discretion in this matter. The umpires generally have a good feel as to how the ball's moving, according to the conditions of the ball and pitch.

Hogg's dismissal of Geraint Jones in the final a few days ago mildly highlighted this point. I'm not sure that Shep would've given that out if he had more discretionary power.

Opens a big, big, big can of worms. What if it's a doosra/googly? No can do.