Walking

[Stumped]

Just thought i'd get ur thoughts on walking. Adam Gilchrist is known as a big walker when he is out he knows it. But i believe this again is wrong. If the umpire wsays not out and you walk i believe that shouldnt be the bowlers wicket maybe counted as you retiring. What are your views on this?

 

[archie mac]

A true Aussie only walks when his car breaks down

 

[oz_fan]

I don't think you should walk. In the end the amount of decisions given for or against you even themselves out. If you walk once you also put yourself in the dilemma of walking all the time. Imagine if it was the last over of the match and you are in a last wicket partnership and need to stay out there to save the match. On the last ball you clearly edge one to the keeper but the umpire gives you not out. I can't see many people walking in that situation.

 

[Turbinator]

I don't think you should walk. In the end the amount of decisions given for or against you even themselves out. If you walk once you also put yourself in the dilemma of walking all the time. Imagine if it was the last over of the match and you are in a last wicket partnership and need to stay out there to save the match. On the last ball you clearly edge one to the keeper but the umpire gives you not out. I can't see many people walking in that situation.

Exactly, decisions not going the way they are suppose to is part of what cricket is about. However, I respect those who do walk, but at the same time I don't blame those who don't.

 

[Dydl]

The debate that would be stirred among your own team, observers, and the publicity your decision could, and most likely will, bring make me a non-walker.

 

[Perm]

I don't think you should walk. In the end the amount of decisions given for or against you even themselves out. If you walk once you also put yourself in the dilemma of walking all the time. Imagine if it was the last over of the match and you are in a last wicket partnership and need to stay out there to save the match. On the last ball you clearly edge one to the keeper but the umpire gives you not out. I can't see many people walking in that situation.

Why not? While I personally consider winning one of the most important things in sport, more important than having fun there would be a hollow feeling in that person forever because they blatantly cheated and ended up winning as a result of doing so. I would walk and I'm confident that Gilchrist would to. I don't have an issue with people who would stay out there if they edge one and are given not out.

 

[mohammad16]

I think it depends on the situation of the game, but moreso it depends on if u think umpire made an honest mistake or not


theres nothing wrong at all with walking

its staying thats debatable, but in alot of instances, not walking seems perfectly reasonable and as one is respecting the umpires desicion, the greatest authority on the field

umpires make mistakes, almost each game ull find an odd desicion which didnt concure with the actual happenings

so its understandable to not walk even when u think u are out

i personally feel there is nothing wrong with walking tohugh

 

[Perm]

I think it depends on the situation of the game,

I don't think it should depend on the situation of the game really, if you are a walker then you are a walker. There shouldn't be any such thing as a selective walker because there is no real purpose in walking then if they only do it sometimes.

 

[roseboy64]

I'll side with Mr. Lara on this one.

 

[33/3from3.3]

Exactly, decisions not going the way they are suppose to is part of what cricket is about. However, I respect those who do walk, but at the same time I don't blame those who don't.

That's exactly my view.

 

[age_master]

I play a reasonable social level and i walk if im out.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Why not? While I personally consider winning one of the most important things in sport, more important than having fun there would be a hollow feeling in that person forever because they blatantly cheated and ended up winning as a result of doing so. I would walk and I'm confident that Gilchrist would to. I don't have an issue with people who would stay out there if they edge one and are given not out.

exactly my view

 

[silentstriker]

I'd never walk. I have trouble enough scoring runs as it is, why would I make it harder on myself?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm not fussed. As others have said, walking is good and deserves respect, but you don't have to walk and I don't consider people who don't to be cheats.

 

[andyc]

Never walked myself. Then again, I have the benefit that normally when I'm out, it's normally either bowled or caught after playing a stupid shot. I can understand why those who walk would do so, and I'm fine with people walking or staying in, it's just something I wouldn't normally do, mainly because as a bowler you cop your fair share of bad decisions against you as it is, so you may as well even it out.

 

[adharcric]

Walking is admirable, but there is nothing wrong with standing your ground. Unless you have a guarantee that the opposition captain will reinstate you if you are given out incorrectly, there's no reason why you should hurt your chances of success for the sake of sportsmanship that nobody on the field cares about.

 

[andmark]

Why does'nt anyone care about retiring.

 

[Perm]

How often to people retire in Test matches or ODI's though? Very rarely, unless they are injured. Pretty average contribution there mate.

 

[Stumped]

Retiring came into it by my suggesstion that if you walk when you are giving not at as another option than giving the bowler the wicket as the umpire has said not out ...it goes down as you retirering

 

[luffy]

I walk if i have made 10-20 nothing less or more.