Who do you agree with?

[Richard]

In much the same way that Herschelle Gibbs made those comments about the Pakistani spectators recently? We all occasionally say things in the heat of the moment that we wish we could take back, and usually we change our tunes when we've had a chance to cool down.

All evidence suggests Donald neither changed his tune nor wished he could take back the remarks.

The examples you've provided, and the manner in which you've interpreted the context in which they were made, really show that what is said out in the middle should be taken less seriously, not more.

If you ask you.

If you ask me, it shows quite clearly that batsmen walking would cause less aggro to the game.

 

[Stumped]

As Mike Hussey said "The man in white is always right!"

 

[Richard]

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1054167&postcount=50
And isn't it being "in the heat of the moment" more likely to mean you're just going to sledge for the sake of it.

As I say - I don't really see, certainly the Donald comment, as sledging, more rightfully-outraged flame-throwing. The Gilchrist one maybe.

But I can't imagine a non-walker, someone other than Gilchrist, making that comment.

At the time of posting, I was thinking more in terms of a player saying that off the field. But if anything, those quotes just back up my point. And when McMillan blew up at Gilchrist after his comments, you don't think that's the reaction that Gilchrist was searching for, or do you really think he was trying to convince him to walk?

I don't think he was trying to convince him to walk, but I don't really think he was trying to provoke a reaction - I think he was drawing attention to the fact that McMillan was doing something he felt was wrong.

 

[Richard]

As Mike Hussey said "The man in white is always right!"

Wouldn't it just be great if he was. Then we'd not need to worry about batsmen walking or not.

 

[Stumped]

Wouldn't it just be great if he was. Then we'd not need to worry about batsmen walking or not.

lol..yer if only!.... after the mike hussey walking incident he wrote an article in one of australia's paper saying that when he was growing up his father i think always said to him the man in white is always right...respect him and his decisions

 

[Barney Rubble]

I've always been in favour of walking, and the way I look at it is that the umpires cannot be expected to get 100% of decisions right - on the occasions where the umpires do get it wrong, if it's possible for the batsman to right that decision by his own actions then he (or she) should do so.

 

[Stumped]

this is obviosuly one of those topics that is going to divide cricket lovers....no argeements will be made

 

[Richard]

I've always been in favour of walking, and the way I look at it is that the umpires cannot be expected to get 100% of decisions right - on the occasions where the umpires do get it wrong, if it's possible for the batsman to right that decision by his own actions then he (or she) should do so.

The true walkers don't even wait for a decision, they just walk off before a bowler's even had the chance to appeal. That way you don't undermine an Umpire's authority.

 

[Dick Rockett]

All evidence suggests Donald neither changed his tune nor wished he could take back the remarks.

What evidence?

If you ask you.

If you ask me, it shows quite clearly that batsmen walking would cause less aggro to the game.

You did point out that Donald's comments were made in the "heat of the moment", so I find it hard to see why they should be taken seriously after the fact. As already mentioned, such comments tend to be a product of anger and frustration, rather than reason.

I once got very angry at Hansie Cronje when he clearly tickled a ball down leg to the keeper in a test against us - yelled all sorts of rude things at the telly. Afterwards though, I realised it was due to the fact that South Africa were playing better than us, rather than that I actually thought he was cheating. He wasn't.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I once got very angry at Hansie Cronje when he clearly tickled a ball down leg to the keeper in a test against us - yelled all sorts of rude things at the telly. Afterwards though, I realised it was due to the fact that South Africa were playing better than us, rather than that I actually thought he was cheating. He wasn't.

TBF tho, with Hansie's track record, you wouldn't stake your life on it, would you?!

Did he give the interview after in a leather jacket?

 

[Dick Rockett]

Haha, no. That was before the whole match-fixing thing blew up - 1994/95 season.

Actually, if he had've walked, that would have been suspicious...

 

[Smudge]

That was a strange test series - we somehow won the first test (through the spinning might of Matthew Hart ) then got our backsides gently slapped in the next two tests.

 

[Dick Rockett]

That was a strange test series - we somehow won the first test (through the spinning might of Matthew Hart ) then got our backsides gently slapped in the next two tests.

And suffered the ignominy of being the first side that century to lose a three test series after winning the first test.

 

[Richard]

What evidence?

The stuff he said afterwards.

You did point out that Donald's comments were made in the "heat of the moment", so I find it hard to see why they should be taken seriously after the fact. As already mentioned, such comments tend to be a product of anger and frustration, rather than reason.

What I meant is that he didn't get the chance to think "I'd better not break protocol and accuse him of cheating", he just said what he thought without worrying about it.

I once got very angry at Hansie Cronje when he clearly tickled a ball down leg to the keeper in a test against us - yelled all sorts of rude things at the telly. Afterwards though, I realised it was due to the fact that South Africa were playing better than us, rather than that I actually thought he was cheating. He wasn't.

How about the fact that both are perfectly possible?

 

[Dick Rockett]

The stuff he said afterwards.

Ok, but do you have any supporting articles to show us?

What I meant is that he didn't get the chance to think "I'd better not break protocol and accuse him of cheating", he just said what he thought without worrying about it.

I still think that counts as "heat-of-the-moment and didn't really mean it", but agree to disagree and all that.

How about the fact that both are perfectly possible?

They are, but I personally don't think Cronje was cheating on that occasion. I was just pissed because NZ were getting bent over.

 

[Josh]

I care not to vote on this opinion, because it is in the player's personal right to do as he/she sees fit. We as the public should not be subjected into what's right and what's wrong, because in a way, they're both right.

Morally: Walking would be right
But following the laws of the game: The umpires decision would be right.

Just up to whether the batsman is playing the game or life morality.

 

[Richard]

Ok, but do you have any supporting articles to show us?

Not that I can link to.

Read Atherton's autobio.