Cheat - cheat - CHEAT

[Lillian Thomson]

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?

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson

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 #1 and #2 are seen as a part of the game while #3 has a more nefarious reputation.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson

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 2 is obviously not cheating as it is not against the Laws and many umpires prefer non-walkers to those that do.

[viktor]

How many court cases have been fought because one player accused another of appealing wrongly or not walking?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The laws of the game state that a player is out when the umpire gives him out, not when he decides to walk. Walking can be seen as undermining the umpires authority in that sense.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson

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?

The difference is that - Umpires dont go and call those batsmen and fielders as cheats, they usually refer it to the 3rd umpire for confirmation.

BTW - nice attemp at attention-seeking.

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by Sanz

The difference is that - Umpires dont go and call those batsmen and fielders as cheats, they usually refer it to the 3rd umpire for confirmation.

BTW - nice attemp at attention-seeking.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're drunk. It's a perfectly valid question, if I wanted to seek attention I would insult people like you do. How often do umpires refer bat/bad catches to the third umpire? Never, unless there's doubt as to whether the ball has carried and the umpires on the field were unsighted.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're drunk. It's a perfectly valid question, if I wanted to seek attention I would insult people like you do. How often do umpires refer bat/bad catches to the third umpire? Never, unless there's doubt as to whether the ball has carried and the umpires on the field were unsighted.

Attacking me isn't going to get anywhere, I will say it again - Anyone who starts a thread "Cheat - cheat - CHEAT" is in need of attention.

And thank you for answering your own question. In any case, Umpires dont go and accuse the batsmen/fielders of cheating, they just move on and that is the difference I was trying to point.

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Attacking me isn't going to get anywhere, I will say it again - Anyone who starts a thread "Cheat - cheat - CHEAT" is in need of attention.

And thank you for answering your own question. In any case, Umpires dont go and accuse the batsmen/fielders of cheating, they just move on and that is the difference I was trying to point.

Okay then, I will explain the question in simple child-like English just for you. The title is Cheat - Cheat- CHEAT because it refers to three types of cheating. The first two in small letters because they are an accepted part of the game, the third one in capital letters because players are offended by the accusation. All three are cheating. It just seems that you can have degrees of cheating, two of which the players openly admit. It has nothing to do with umpires.

[Sanz]

That seems like an explanation in Drunk-like English rather than in Child-Like English.

[open365]

Sanz you're an idiot.

Well, IMO appealing when you don't think the batsman is out and walking aren't cheating at all.
The reason they aren't cheating is because they both have an element of 'swings and roundabouts to them'. Say the umpire turns down 3 stone dead appeals then you bowl one that you don't really think is out and he gives it, that's not chetaing, that's justice.

Same with walking, only i believe walking is acctualy a feasible concept, appealing when you know something isn't out is stupid because the umpire isn't going to give it out is he? Unless he gives it, in which case you had every right to appeal because in the opinion of the umpire it was out.

[jack_sparrow]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Well 2 is obviously not cheating as it is not against the Laws and many umpires prefer non-walkers to those that do.

absolutely bro.

[Sanz]

Anyways when you get sober you will probably understand that appealing isn't same as being given out.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by open365

Sanz you're an idiot.

Well, IMO appealing when you don't think the batsman is out and walking aren't cheating at all.
The reason they aren't cheating is because they both have an element of 'swings and roundabouts to them'. Say the umpire turns down 3 stone dead appeals then you bowl one that you don't really think is out and he gives it, that's not chetaing, that's justice.

Same with walking, only i believe walking is acctualy a feasible concept, appealing when you know something isn't out is stupid because the umpire isn't going to give it out is he? Unless he gives it, in which case you had every right to appeal because in the opinion of the umpire it was out.

And I completely agree with you except the first sentence.

[jack_sparrow]

indian publics comments on the current issue:

http://o3.indiatimes.com/mytimes/arc...1/1328473.aspx

I suppose I can understand their reactions. They got royally screwed from the very first hair match. Where 8 indians were given lbw outs, and all of their appeals except for one was rejected!




while english public's responses are gathered here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbtms/F2208...kip=40&show=20


couldnt find pakistanis forums or the likes.