The Fine Line: Would You Walk?

[BoyBrumby]

Never walking is every bit as bad as walking depending on the circumstances.

Nope. I'm making no relativistic judgements as to the import of my walking or not walking. If it's something you believe in you should always do it.

 

[Richard]

Dropped catches are a part of the game. Should a bowler feel bad for taking a wicket off a mistimed heave to deep square leg? After all, the majority of wickets these days come off bad shots rather than awesome balls. Does that invalidate the value of all those wickets?

If someone gets 5 or 6 wickets when all are off heaves to square-leg, yes.
The majority of wickets have always come from bad strokes off deliveries that have nothing wicket-taking about them. I don't really mind if bowlers bowl 2 good deliveries an innings and get 3 poor-stroke wickets.
Clearly, though, this is not comparable to dropped catches.

 

[Richard]

Nope. I'm making no relativistic judgements as to the import of my walking or not walking. If it's something you believe in you should always do it.

Believing in not walking is a sporting sin as far as I'm concerned - because it's blatant cheating from where I'm standing.
Of course, others feel differently.

 

[C_C]

I walked everytime really, regardless of the situation. Primarily because i am used to be a bowler who's idea of batting was 'have fun, give it your best shot but cant be bothered too much either way'. Used to bat around #5 or #6 and i either scratched around for a 30 or tonked around for 30.
Bowling-wise, i didnt appeal simply because the ball was close to the bat - appealed if there was any deviation or sound....but yeah, i did go nuts on lbw appeals ( unless its pitched outside leg)...i usually dont know myself if the ball is gonna hit or not, so i pose the question pretty much everytime the ball hits the pad and its not blatently pitched outside leg.

 

[Richard]

PLEASE DON'T!

For the love of God please

Don't you take The Lord's name in vain, young man.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Believing in not walking is a sporting sin as far as I'm concerned - because it's blatant cheating from where I'm standing.
Of course, others feel differently.

It's nothing of the kind. The batsman is under no obligation to incriminate himself. Not walking only enters the realm of sharp practice if it's accompanied by some theatrics like, say, looking at one's bat to suggest an inside edge where there wasn't one on an LBW shout.

 

[C_C]

The batsman is under no obligation to incriminate himself.

Why ?

 

[Kweek]

depends what league, IF i play a important cup or 1st div, and there are umpire of the dutch cricket board, I do not walk, its there job to do so.
if its just low/normal club level and there are umpires of both teams, or coaches or whatever. i'd walk depending how important my runs are. its there job, not mine, mine is to score runs.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why ?

The analogy I tend to use is to compare it to "taking the fifth". Whilst it's obviously desirable for honesty in any given circumstance, I don't think one can morally oblige someone to own up unless a denial involves an untruth (as in my looking at the bat example).

 

[C_C]

The analogy I tend to use is to compare it to "taking the fifth". Whilst it's obviously desirable for honesty in any given circumstance, I don't think one can morally oblige someone to own up unless a denial involves an untruth (as in my looking at the bat example).

Okay. That went a bit too fast. Can you please run that past me one more time ?

 

[Robertinho]

It always depends on the circumstances - the score you're on; the situation of the match; your opponents; your place in the team; if you've copped some poor decisions recently etc. They're all factors that come into it for virtually everyone, I dare say. Very, very few people would be totally unconditional walkers.

You can't walk sometimes and not walk other times... that's kind of missing the point.

 

[TT Boy]

Never walked in my life, don’t score enough runs to take the moral high ground.

 

[Richard]

It's nothing of the kind. The batsman is under no obligation to incriminate himself. Not walking only enters the realm of sharp practice if it's accompanied by some theatrics like, say, looking at one's bat to suggest an inside edge where there wasn't one on an LBW shout.

The batsman is under no obligation, no - it's one of those things that goes against ethics without going against laws - like little does in the "real" World.
Most unethical things are illegal.
IMO the Code Of Conduct should be amended so that not walking when replays and technology can prove you knew you were out beyond reasonable doubt is an equal offence of trying to get a decision referred after it's made, claiming a catch that beyond reasonable doubt you know has carried, etc.
Should make cricket a better game IMO.

 

[Richard]

The analogy I tend to use is to compare it to "taking the fifth". Whilst it's obviously desirable for honesty in any given circumstance, I don't think one can morally oblige someone to own up unless a denial involves an untruth (as in my looking at the bat example).

So someone is not morally obliged to turn himself in having pushed someone into a raging river?
I'd say he is.
And I'd say he's committing not only a crime but a moral breach, too.

 

[Goughy]

Never walked and never will.
3 points on the matter-

• As a bowler, I do not expect a batsman to walk if he nicks it. Ill give him some verbals (maybe) but Im certainly not upset with him. Its part of the game and only out if the umpire gives it. I don't have different standards for the opponent and myself
• Hitting the ball has nothing to do with being out. In order to be out there has to be an appeal and the umpire has to raise his finger. It matters not whether you touch the ball. The batsman is not part of the equasion. Cricket is strange in its rule in that for a decision to be made a team must ask for it rather than it being just made. I mean if you nicked the ball to the keeper and no-one appealed would you tell the bowler "Oh, I hit that. You should appeal"?
• I try very hard to not lie in life. I would never walk but if I was standing there and the umpire said "Young man, did you hit that?", I would answer "Yes" and still stand there waiting for the finger to be raised.

Oh, and I do umpire in case anyone thinks Im making it hard on the man standing in the middle

 

[Richard]

You can't walk sometimes and not walk other times... that's kind of missing the point.

It's missing the point, but you can and some do.

 

[Goughy]

Well - you can't. It's against the rules.
As I say - the only thing you could do would be to deliberately get yourself out the next ball, which would be interpreted as kinda weird.

No it is not. You could retire which counts as an out.

It would be interesting to see a guy, who after being dropped, said "Unlucky old chap, I should have been out there. Due to that I retire and declare my innings closed".

 

[Richard]

Never walked and never will.
3 points on the matter-

• As a bowler, I do not expect a batsman to walk if he nicks it. Ill give him some verbals (maybe) but Im certainly not upset with him. Its part of the game and only out if the umpire gives it. I don't have different standards for the opponent and myself
• Hitting the ball has nothing to do with being out. In order to be out there has to be an appeal and the umpire has to raise his finger. It matters not whether you touch the ball. The batsman is not part of the equasion. Cricket is strange in its rule in that for a decision to be made a team must ask for it rather than it being just made. I mean if you nicked the ball to the keeper and no-one appealed would you tell the bowler "Oh, I hit that. You should appeal"?
• I try very hard to not lie in life. I would never walk but if I was standing there and the umpire said "Young man, did you hit that?", I would answer "Yes" and still stand there waiting for the finger to be raised.

Oh, and I do umpire in case anyone thinks Im making it hard on the man standing in the middle

Haha, good ones.
You think it is against the law for a batsman to walk if he nicks one and there's no appeal?
As far as I know, it's not.
Anyway - many bowlers don't actually appeal, they just run on through - and if the batsman then doesn't walk THEY get into trouble.
How, incidentally, do you differentiate between an "obvious" nick and a "non-obvious" one? Does the Umpire have to give you out if you nick it to third-slip and you stand there?

 

[Richard]

No it is not. You could retire which counts as an out.

It would be interesting to see a guy, who after being dropped, said "Unlucky old chap, I should have been out there. Due to that I retire and declare my innings closed".

I'd probably do that if I was in a Nobby Clark situation.

 

[Goughy]

Haha, good ones.
You think it is against the law for a batsman to walk if he nicks one and there's no appeal?
As far as I know, it's not.

Er..no but if there is no appeal an umpire cannot give it out even if you nick it to 3rd slip.

An umpire is required by the laws only to give a batsman out if there is an appeal. No appeal means the umpire cannot give it out.


Law 27 (Appeals)
1. Umpire not to give batsman out without an appeal
Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by the fielding side. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made. Note, however, the provisions of 7 below.


http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-27-appeals,53,AR.html