• 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.

walk or not???

dro87

U19 12th Man
On Sunday for the second time in a row a walked off after edging the ball, and none of the umpires heard or saw anything.... The first time i was on 16 and the second i was only on 4... My skipper/dad got ****ed off cos my fair-play was going against the team, and because i'm the only player in the leauge who walkes, so why care?-- PLus our pro (australian) told never 2 walk again--- He says: you walk only when you *ucking car brakes down... What shall i do next time i know i'm out and the ump doesn't raise his finger?
 
Last edited:

Kweek

Cricketer Of The Year
well, when you play are there official umpires ? like umpires who are send by the italian cricket board?
if yes. dont walk they are there to make the decission not you.
when a teammate is umpireing walk. easy.


and btw, played for the MCC YC's already?
 

dro87

U19 12th Man
Official Umpires... The problem is in ITALY no one walks... Why should i play fair when the rest don't????
For the MCC YOUNG CRICKETERS they told me that 2 be selected i needed 2 perform wel in the upcoming U19 wold cup qualifying champs in Scotland... and probably next year they'll select me... Hopefully...
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I know how you feel Dro. As a 14 year old, I was playing some senior cricket and it was my first game in the 2nds. The umpires didn't rock up, so one of the fast bowlers from our own team was umpiring. Early on, I edged one down leg side, and he gave me not out (he said he legitimately thought that I wasn't out afterwards, but it was a fairly obvious nick) and I just stood there shi*ting myself waiting for the decision. I ended up making 64, and just copping abuse from 30 year olds the whole innings about being a cheat and not walking.

Although I did happen to remind them on the odd occassion that it wouldn't have mattered at all if they hadn't have dropped me four times.
 

parttimer

U19 Cricketer
Not walking is like shaving strokes playing golf, ur only cheating yourself. And how good can u feel about scoring a hundred when u knew u were out b4 and stayed alive due only by dishonesty.

Then again, i guess you can walk if your the greatest wicket keeper batsman of all time. If he was fighting for his position and struggling for runs his own selfish motives could come into play? The lure of the darkside is strong ;)
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
parttimer said:
Not walking is like shaving strokes playing golf, ur only cheating yourself. And how good can u feel about scoring a hundred when u knew u were out b4 and stayed alive due only by dishonesty
Hmm, sort of. I guess it's more like doing what Pat Rafter did that time in a tennis tournament. On the other guy's match point, Rafter saved it after the guy hit the ball out, but Rafter goes "No, the ball was in" and therefore lost.

And what about the times when you were going to make a hundred, but copped a bad one? I'd feel much better having made 100 than not, no matter what the circumstances.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not walking is like shaving strokes playing golf, ur only cheating yourself. And how good can u feel about scoring a hundred when u knew u were out b4 and stayed alive due only by dishonesty.
Not analogous and frankly the inference of cheating is unfair. Not walking means you leave the decision up to the umpire so you still get judged by someone in a better position than you're in. And Gilchrist's dismissal is a perfect example of where you can be wrong. Walking does undermine the position of the umpire a little too and until all decisions made by umpires are perfect, there's always the chance you'll get a roughie and speaking in probabilities, the rough ones will largely equal out of time with the fortunate ones.

As I said, walking may be the gentlemanly thing to do but not walking is more consistent. One thing not walking is NOT is cheating because you're not deciding whether you're out or not but handing that decision to the umpire instead.
 

deeps

International 12th Man
how about if you edge it...keeper catches it...and the bowling side dnt even appeal???
happend to me once...

First game of last season, went for a cut shot, got the edge, carried to keeper...and was ready to be given out...and not evne an appeal!

so i just stayed there...

dint matter much, 2 or 3 balls later, i connected on that cut shot i tried earlier, and hit it straight to gully :(
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
deeps said:
how about if you edge it...keeper catches it...and the bowling side dnt even appeal???
happend to me once...

First game of last season, went for a cut shot, got the edge, carried to keeper...and was ready to be given out...and not evne an appeal!

so i just stayed there...

dint matter much, 2 or 3 balls later, i connected on that cut shot i tried earlier, and hit it straight to gully :(
I had that on 48 once, after going through two seasons without making a 50 - but with 7 40s.
 

deeps

International 12th Man
i wld never walk in a proper game.

I do walk when we play friendly's and non significant matches.

In a proper game, i never walk.. Not against walking, and i admire those who do, but unless it was really obvious, and the umpire was makin a big mistake, i tend to stay at the crease. I could do with all the batting and runs i can get :p
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
Top_Cat said:
Never walk. Ever. It may not be gentlemanly but it's consistent.
Bah! Just do what you think is right on a consistent basis.

I don't believe people have to walk, but I would encourage it. It's good for the game, IMO.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bah! Just do what you think is right on a consistent basis.

I don't believe people have to walk, but I would encourage it. It's good for the game, IMO.
Agree it's a personal choice but disagree that it's 'good for the game'. Sure it harks back to some anachronistic, gentleman's version of the game and makes people feel and all warm and fuzzy about being 'honest' but the morality of the game seems barely affected by people being 'honest' and in fact, creates some form of moral division as those who walk are considered more 'honest' whereas those who accept that they're not necessarily in the best position to judge and leave the decision up to the appointed officials (umpires) are looked upon as 'less honest' which is totally unfair.

In fact, come to think of it, I'm struggling to think of ways in which, other than making people feel better, walking has a genuine affect on the game at all.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
Top_Cat said:
Agree it's a personal choice but disagree that it's 'good for the game'. Sure it harks back to some anachronistic, gentleman's version of the game and makes people feel and all warm and fuzzy about being 'honest' but the morality of the game seems barely affected by people being 'honest' and in fact, creates some form of moral division as those who walk are considered more 'honest' whereas those who accept that they're not necessarily in the best position to judge and leave the decision up to the appointed officials (umpires) are looked upon as 'less honest' which is totally unfair.

In fact, come to think of it, I'm struggling to think of ways in which, other than making people feel better, walking has a genuine affect on the game at all.
Walking should be predicated on the fact that you do actually know that you are out. If you're not entirely sure that you nicked one, or hit one onto your pad, you should not walk.

Given this clarification, a moral division between those who know that they are out and walk, and those who know that they are out and don't walk is inescapable. You may not like to be confronted with it, but that doesn't make it any less true. Deciding not to walk is taking advantage of a legal condition of the game, which you are very much entitled to do. If you wish not to walk, that's fine as long as you don't deliberately mislead the umpire - but I don't think we can argue that it's morally equivalent to walking when you know you should be out.

IMO, walking when you know for sure that you are out leads to more accurate decisions, so I have little trouble seeing the benefits it offers the game. I think honesty is good for the sport. Hell, I think it's good for any sport.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Given this clarification, a moral division between those who know that they are out and walk, and those who know that they are out and don't walk is inescapable. You may not like to be confronted with it, but that doesn't make it any less true. Deciding not to walk is taking advantage of a legal condition of the game, which you are very much entitled to do. If you wish not to walk, that's fine as long as you don't deliberately mislead the umpire - but I don't think we can argue that it's morally equivalent to walking when you know you should be out.
Nothing really to disagree with there but I maintain that not walking when you nick one would only really be indefensible if you were never given out when you aren't out. If everyone walked, the statistical importance of an instance of a batsman given out when not takes on a higher level and I don't think that's acceptable.

It's a personal choice (and should be) but I prefer to put my fate in the hands of the umpires and accept the decision no matter which way it goes than to walk on decisions where I know I'm out BUT still get incorrect ones given against me.

IMO, walking when you know for sure that you are out leads to more accurate decisions, so I have little trouble seeing the benefits it offers the game. I think honesty is good for the sport. Hell, I think it's good for any sport.
Other than the example you gave (i.e. more accurate decisions), how is walking going to affect the game in the modern professional context?
 

Shounak

Banned
I say NEVER WALK. You take the good with the bad. Sometimes you get bad decisions, you accept it. Sometimes you get good ones (decisions in your favour), accept those ones too.

In my eyes, walking ruins the balance.

An example. If you get pulled over goin 15 km/h (or m/ph), over the limit and the copper decides to not give you a ticket. Your reaction is usually a big "phheewww". Very few people would tell the officer to give them a ticket because it's the right thing to do and they actually were speeding.

I think if you're the type of person to argue with the copper, then walking would make sense. Because it's congruent with your morales, values or personality. What I'm against are people walking for self serving, rather then moral reasons.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
Top_Cat said:
Nothing really to disagree with there but I maintain that not walking when you nick one would only really be indefensible if you were never given out when you aren't out. If everyone walked, the statistical importance of an instance of a batsman given out when not takes on a higher level and I don't think that's acceptable.

It's a personal choice (and should be) but I prefer to put my fate in the hands of the umpires and accept the decision no matter which way it goes than to walk on decisions where I know I'm out BUT still get incorrect ones given against me.
I never said that it was indefensible (and that line of argument is a straw man) - if I believed that, I wouldn't be advocating it as a personal choice. For that reason, I'm not in the slightest bit interested in condemning those that don't walk. Steve Waugh is my all-time favorite player, and he NEVER did.

However, I'm all in favor of praising those that do walk. I think it's a good thing to do, if you're prepared to do it. The rest of your comments here are IMO are better arguments for the introduction of technology and replays than for saying nothing when you know you're out - again, IMO.



Top_Cat said:
Other than the example you gave (i.e. more accurate decisions), how is walking going to affect the game in the modern professional context?
Well, apart from the fact that greater accuracy is surely a significant benefit, what's the point of any code of player conduct if you're going to dismiss it on the basis that it makes us feel warm and fuzzy about ourselves? I believe that honesty in the game should be encouraged, and I think it's a good thing. I don't believe in condemning those who don't walk, as I can see that the rationalisations for doing so are persuasive. It's hardly the biggest issue in the game, either. I like the spirit of it though.
 

Top