Cheat - cheat - CHEAT

[Sanz]

The umpire is forced into making the decision by the cheating batsman. The batsman is out and he knows it, he's cheating.

A batsman is NOT OUT until the fielding team appeals for it and/or until umpire says he/she is out.

 

[open365]

You cannot break a law that does not exist. Walking is not a law.

*claps*

 

[Pedro Delgado]

couldnt find pakistanis forums or the likes.

Pakpassion is the kiddie.

 

[Langeveldt]

yeah or humpakistani.org

 

[SJS]

1. Appealling for a catch when you know the batsman has not hit the ball = Cheating
2. A batsman not walking when he's knows he's out = Cheating
3. Fielders deliberately altering the condition of the ball = CHEATING

All teams openly transgress the first two, not occasionally, but every single Innings of every Test Match. Both are blatant cheating. Yet to be accused of number 3 is to have a slur on your Country likely to cause an International Incident. Why the big difference?

- I would have modified "1" to Appealing when you know you have picked up the ball on first bounce or have knocked off the stumps without the ball in your hand/s while attempting a run out or stumping (ala Ridley Jacobs).

 

[Slow Love™]

1. Appealling for a catch when you know the batsman has not hit the ball = Cheating
2. A batsman not walking when he's knows he's out = Cheating
3. Fielders deliberately altering the condition of the ball = CHEATING

All teams openly transgress the first two, not occasionally, but every single Innings of every Test Match. Both are blatant cheating. Yet to be accused of number 3 is to have a slur on your Country likely to cause an International Incident. Why the big difference?

Well, aside from the fact that number 2 is fairly debated whether it's cheating or not, I think it's mainly due to the way the press can beat up altering the condition of the ball. Rather than having to cite specific decisions, it can be used as a catch-all for why a side won a game - in the sense that the reason the batting team failed was because the bowling was too hard to play in general due to the other team's cheating.

Also, in Pakistan's case, there are obviously open wounds on the issue, given the press's suspicion years back where any reverse swing seemed direct evidence of ball tampering, while Simon Jones' reverse swing against the Aussies garnered nothing but praise of his skill.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You cannot break a law that does not exist.

I may be in a small minority on this, I may even be in a minority of one, but I don't consider that in order to be cheating you have to break a law. Just to use football (soccer) as an example for a moment. During the World Cup this summer many players were branded as cheats for their diving and feigning of injury. They weren't branded cheats because the FIFA hand book says Thou Shalt Not Dive, they were branded as cheats because they were attempting to gain an unfair advantage by conning the match officials. Similarly in cricket if for example a fielder claims a catch knowing full well that the batsman has not hit the ball he is attempting to con the umpire into believing that a legitimate dismissal has taken place. It might not say in the laws that you can't appeal in those circumstances and it might state that the entire onus in on the umpire, but you can't get away from the fact that the fielder is attempted to con the umpire. The same thing can be applied to the non-walking batsman, he is attempting to con the umpire into believing that he hasn't hit the ball. No matter how you attempt to dress it up or how many laws do or don't exist, attempting to con match officials in any sport has to be called cheating, there is no other word to adequately describe it.

Rant over - thank you.

 

[Goughy]

I may be in a small minority on this, I may even be in a minority of one, but I don't consider that in order to be cheating you have to break a law. Just to use football (soccer) as an example for a moment. During the World Cup this summer many players were branded as cheats for their diving and feigning of injury. They weren't branded cheats because the FIFA hand book says Thou Shalt Not Dive, they were branded as cheats because they were attempting to gain an unfair advantage by conning the match officials. Similarly in cricket if for example a fielder claims a catch knowing full well that the batsman has not hit the ball he is attempting to con the umpire into believing that a legitimate dismissal has taken place. It might not say in the laws that you can't appeal in those circumstances and it might state that the entire onus in on the umpire, but you can't get away from the fact that the fielder is attempted to con the umpire. The same thing can be applied to the non-walking batsman, he is attempting to con the umpire into believing that he hasn't hit the ball. No matter how you attempt to dress it up or how many laws do or don't exist, attempting to con match officials in any sport has to be called cheating, there is no other word to adequately describe it.

Rant over - thank you.

Sorry to disagree but thats not correct.

Decision 5

Any simulating action anywhere on the field, which is intended to deceive the referee, must be sanctioned as unsporting behaviour.

That is under Law 12 where diving is a booking offense.

There is no comparison between diving and walking. One is clearly expressed to be illegal within the laws of the game and another is something that even the umpires and administraters cannot agree if it is a bad thing or not.

Walking or non-walking has noting to do with trying to con match officials. In fact it is the opposite. It is waiting and respecting the decision given made by the umpire. The game is played by a decision from the umpire.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Sorry to disagree but thats not correct.



That is under Law 12 where diving is a booking offense.

There is no comparison between diving and walking. One is clearly expressed to be illegal within the laws of the game and another is something that even the umpires and administraters cannot agree if it is a bad thing or not.

Walking or non-walking has noting to do with trying to con match officials. In fact it is the opposite. It is waiting and respecting the decision given made by the umpire. The game is played by a decision from the umpire.

I knew someone would quote the simulation law, but it's not relevant. The law on simulation was brought into football specifically to deal with the diving and feigning of injury in an attempt to stop players doing it. They were branded as cheats long before the law came in and were in fact the cause of the law being implimented.
It's a bit naive to suggest that the batsman is not walking out of respect for the umpire. He's not walking because it's in his best interest and in the best interest of his team to remain at the wicket.

 

[adharcric]

I may be in a small minority on this, I may even be in a minority of one, but I don't consider that in order to be cheating you have to break a law. Just to use football (soccer) as an example for a moment. During the World Cup this summer many players were branded as cheats for their diving and feigning of injury. They weren't branded cheats because the FIFA hand book says Thou Shalt Not Dive, they were branded as cheats because they were attempting to gain an unfair advantage by conning the match officials. Similarly in cricket if for example a fielder claims a catch knowing full well that the batsman has not hit the ball he is attempting to con the umpire into believing that a legitimate dismissal has taken place. It might not say in the laws that you can't appeal in those circumstances and it might state that the entire onus in on the umpire, but you can't get away from the fact that the fielder is attempted to con the umpire. The same thing can be applied to the non-walking batsman, he is attempting to con the umpire into believing that he hasn't hit the ball. No matter how you attempt to dress it up or how many laws do or don't exist, attempting to con match officials in any sport has to be called cheating, there is no other word to adequately describe it.

Rant over - thank you.

You just highlighted the difference between cheating and unsportsmanlike conduct. One involves the official infringement of the rulebook and the other involves a "cheap" act to gain an unfair advantage, as you say. Both suck, but only the former is officially "cheating". I hope that made some sense ...

 

[Matteh]

Walking if you know you're out may not be a law, but knowing that you're out and waiting for the finger is a further move away from the old gentlemanly spirit that the game used to have. Hyper-competitiveness has seen people move away from this by manging to interpret the rules in a perfectly valid but ungentlemanly way.

 

[honestbharani]

1. Appealling for a catch when you know the batsman has not hit the ball = Cheating
2. A batsman not walking when he's knows he's out = Cheating
3. Fielders deliberately altering the condition of the ball = CHEATING

All teams openly transgress the first two, not occasionally, but every single Innings of every Test Match. Both are blatant cheating. Yet to be accused of number 3 is to have a slur on your Country likely to cause an International Incident. Why the big difference?

because in 1 and 2, u have an umpire there to make a decision. In 3, it is something that even the umpires cannot control unless they see it.