• 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.

Cheat - cheat - CHEAT

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
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

The Wheel is Forever
Lillian Thomson said:
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

Hall of Fame Member
Lillian Thomson said:
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

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

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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

Hall of Fame Member
Lillian Thomson said:
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

Hall of Fame Member
Sanz said:
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.:laugh: It's a perfectly valid question, if I wanted to seek attention I would insult people like you do.8-) 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

Hall of Fame Member
Lillian Thomson said:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're drunk.:laugh: It's a perfectly valid question, if I wanted to seek attention I would insult people like you do.8-) 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

Hall of Fame Member
Sanz said:
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

Hall of Fame Member
That seems like an explanation in Drunk-like English rather than in Child-Like English.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
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.
 

Sanz

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

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
open365 said:
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.:cool:
 

jack_sparrow

U19 Debutant

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Thank you to those who are giving sensible answers to a perfectly valid question, I will ignore all further idiotic attempts to hi-jack the thread.
I still think that not walking is cheating. The rules of the game say that if a batsman hits the ball and the ball is caught by a fielder before bouncing then he is out. The fact that the written laws can be interpreted as to dump all the emphasis on the umpires doesn't alter the fact by not walking the batsman is cheating.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
Lillian Thomson said:
Thank you to those who are giving sensible answers to a perfectly valid question, I will ignore all further idiotic attempts to hi-jack the thread.
I still think that not walking is cheating. The rules of the game say that if a batsman hits the ball and the ball is caught by a fielder before bouncing then he is out. The fact that the written laws can be interpreted as to dump all the emphasis on the umpires doesn't alter the fact by not walking the batsman is cheating.
A quote from a famous umpire 'just look in th scoreboard to see if that was out'

The umpire makes the decision, your logic is flawed, yes a batsman is out it he edges it and someone catches it, but the umpries are the ones who have to give him out.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
open365 said:
A quote from a famous umpire 'just look in th scoreboard to see if that was out'

The umpire makes the decision, your logic is flawed, yes a batsman is out it he edges it and someone catches it, but the umpries are the ones who have to give him out.
The umpire is forced into making the decision by the cheating batsman. The batsman is out and he knows it, he's cheating.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Lillian Thomson said:
The umpire is forced into making the decision by the cheating batsman. The batsman is out and he knows it, he's cheating.

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

Top