walk or not???

[Shounak]

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

I contend that ump's generally know what's going on. They generally know when a googly's being bowler I'd say. And if they're unsure, they should just judge it according to the previous law.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Can you imagine the outcry if a 50-50 goes against someone? The law is complex enough as it is, without further opportunities for people to whinge about Bucknor being bribed etc.

 

[Shounak]

Can you imagine the outcry if a 50-50 goes against someone? The law is complex enough as it is, without further opportunities for people to whinge about Bucknor being bribed etc.

You'll always get outcry. But conversely, imagine if the umpire uses it to correctly judge a decision. There won't be any outcry about it, but I'm sure the umpire would be aware if someone like Warney or Macgill released the ball from the back of the hand. Warney's wrong'uns are usually pretty easy to pick. Even easier I'll bet for an experienced umpire.

 

[Shounak]

Can you imagine the outcry if a 50-50 goes against someone? The law is complex enough as it is, without further opportunities for people to whinge about Bucknor being bribed etc.

Just thought of a non cricket example. Look at something like the accounting laws or the legal system. Hundreds and hundreds of new laws exist now that didn't exist a hundred years ago. Does that mean all the lawyers and judges throw their hands up in the air in exasperation, because the laws are too complex.

They learn to deal with it. Sure, workloads for accoutants and lawyers have increased in the last hundred years. But society is better of as a whole as a result of it.

 

[Swervy]

You'll always get outcry. But conversely, imagine if the umpire uses it to correctly judge a decision. There won't be any outcry about it, but I'm sure the umpire would be aware if someone like Warney or Macgill released the ball from the back of the hand. Warney's wrong'uns are usually pretty easy to pick. Even easier I'll bet for an experienced umpire.

so an umpire would then have to watch the ball coming out of the hand AND the front foot, then quickly shift his attention to where the ball is meant to pitch and then evaluate whether it would hit the stumps etc.

All in less than a second..I dont think so

 

[Dasa]

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.

I'd prefer the rule to stay how it is. Bowlers get precious little going their way these days, with huge sledgehammer bats, fielding restrictions (in ODIs) and flat pitches. A little something to even up the scale is OK in my opinion.

 

[Shounak]

so an umpire would then have to watch the ball coming out of the hand AND the front foot, then quickly shift his attention to where the ball is meant to pitch and then evaluate whether it would hit the stumps etc.

All in less than a second..I dont think so

The ump wouldn't have to. He's just got the discretionary power to do so. He'd probably only exercise his power in extreme cases. The previous rule would probably still be used most of the time anyway.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

yeah, I was only pointing out that he wasn't being consistent on this issue.