• 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.

Not walking when you nick it? That's cheating!

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Well of course it's cheating not to walk when you snick it - but it's acceptable cheating.

In other words, it's a bit like telling a 'white lie'. Lying (by definition) is morally dubious, but OK if done for the greater good, and no one is physically hurt as a result. Feelings are hurt of course, but who cares about those. The team on the receiving end of the 'white lie' should just get over it and move on.
Ok, batsman nicks it to the cordon, umpire doesn't hear it, he walks because he's a sporting chap and he knows he's hit it. Hurrah, isn't the spirit of cricket wonderful?

Next week he middles one onto his pads. Up goes the fielding side for the appeal, and up goes the umpire's finger in response. Should he just stand his ground, and if not, why not? He's hit it, therefore he's not out.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, the walking thing only becomes an issue when spoilt under-achievers like Watson, Yuvraj, etc. abuse the privilege and look like they've been kicked in the **** when they're clearly out. Personally wish the rules were harder on them, maybe they could be banned from referring anything for their next 5 matches or something.
 
Last edited:

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
How in love with himself would Watson be had he been allowed to continue to believe that he's always wrongfully given?
 

watson

Banned
Ok, batsman nicks it to the cordon, umpire doesn't hear it, he walks because he's a sporting chap and he knows he's hit it. Hurrah, isn't the spirit of cricket wonderful?

Next week he middles one onto his pads. Up goes the fielding side for the appeal, and up goes the umpire's finger in response. Should he just stand his ground, and if not, why not? He's hit it, therefore he's not out.
No, the batsman should get out of there and head back to the pavillion. Let's face of it, all of us have to put up with a whole buch of stuff in our lives that is unfair, and not what we want - especially at work. I don't see why a cricketers 'work' should be any different
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
but why should batsmen have to put up with it more than bowlers?

The reason batsmen get the benefit of the doubt is that they only have to be given out wrongfully once for their complete innings to end. A bowler can always keep bowling after an incorrect decision.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
No, the batsman should get out of there and head back to the pavillion. Let's face of it, all of us have to put up with a whole buch of stuff in our lives that is unfair, and not what we want - especially at work. I don't see why a cricketers 'work' should be any different
How many of them might end your career?
 

Flem274*

123/5
No, the batsman should get out of there and head back to the pavillion. Let's face of it, all of us have to put up with a whole buch of stuff in our lives that is unfair, and not what we want - especially at work. I don't see why a cricketers 'work' should be any different
haha that's not how international sport works. if you're gonna die, you make damn well sure you die kicking and screaming. good spirit, honour, grace or whatever are nice fluffy concepts the fans can talk about.

the laws of the game state you can stand your ground, therefore you damn well stand your ground every single time. i wouldnt be surprised if many captains banned walking.
 

watson

Banned
haha that's not how international sport works. if you're gonna die, you make damn well sure you die kicking and screaming. good spirit, honour, grace or whatever are nice fluffy concepts the fans can talk about.

the laws of the game state you can stand your ground, therefore you damn well stand your ground every single time. i wouldnt be surprised if many captains banned walking.
That's more or less what I said - I'm all for the batsman standing their ground. However, if and when you are given out by the ump then you go without making a scene.
 

The Battlers Prince

International Vice-Captain
Well of course it's cheating not to walk when you snick it - but it's acceptable cheating.
Its interesting, I see your point. To me its not cheating because the batsman hasn't broken any rules, yet, the defiant stance staring down at the umpire almost daring him to give you out. I didn't edge that! Well like I said, I see your point, bloody cheaters, unless its me, then it's fine to wait until I'm given out.

That's more or less what I said - I'm all for the batsman standing their ground. However, if and when you are given out by the ump then you go without making a scene.
Defnitely, being upset is fine. I know I was heartbroken every time the umpire gives me out. But carrying on is another thing, and it shouldn't have a place in cricket, or in any sport for that matter. Umps and referees are there to make a decision. Can't stand the whingeing.
 

Adders

Cricketer Of The Year
Christ this again.

Look, those who walk can have their opinion and lay on as much pressure as they like but for all their sanctimonious bleating, one thing will never change and that's the right of a batsman to stand their ground, wait for an appeal and the umpire to send them on their way or not. This is literally the most pointless cricketing debate of all time.
Totally agree......it's right up there with "Englands Foreigners" and we're currently discussing both in active threads. When does the ****ing cricket start??
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
Fielders are entitled to appeal even when they're 99% sure a batsman is not out, a batsman is entitled to stand his ground even if he's 99% sure he's out. Expecting professional cricketers to treat umpires like amateurs is ridiculous. They're there to make the call, not you.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
That's more or less what I said - I'm all for the batsman standing their ground. However, if and when you are given out by the ump then you go without making a scene.
You're missing the point.

Batsmen have to cop it when the umpire makes an error, so the fielding side can cop one if the umpire misses a nick. It's not the batsman's place to right the wrong by walking as the fielding side would never withdraw an appeal that had won them an incorrect decision.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You're missing the point.

Batsmen have to cop it when the umpire makes an error, so the fielding side can cop one if the umpire misses a nick. It's not the batsman's place to right the wrong by walking as the fielding side would never withdraw an appeal that had won them an incorrect decision.
Keep an eye on the front page on Sunday - I'll be putting up an extract from a new book by John Barclay (Old Etonian and Sussex skipper from the 1980s) about an incident where he didn't walk after gloving one to the keeper despite a raucous appeal, and then a few deliveries later the fielding side withdrew an appeal where the umpire had, quite correctly, given him out - 'tis absolute gold, I promise you
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
finally got round to reading the article in the OP, such rubbish, that **** about how hitting one to cover and walking should be no different to nicking to keeper. Of course it's ****ing different, there is doubt when you nick to the keeper, sometimes the umpire gets it wrong, it's not clear cut like hitting it to an outfielder.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Well of course it's cheating not to walk when you snick it - but it's acceptable cheating.

In other words, it's a bit like telling a 'white lie'. Lying (by definition) is morally dubious, but OK if done for the greater good, and no one is physically hurt as a result. Feelings are hurt of course, but who cares about those. The team on the receiving end of the 'white lie' should just get over it and move on.
That's horse ****. Things like ball tampering and time wasting are 'accepted cheating' because they're actually against the rules. The Laws actually say that the spirit of cricket you must follow is to accept the umpire's decision. Not walking is completely within - perhaps even enforced by - the rules.

It's not an overreaction to call someone who didn't walk a cheat, it's simply an outright lie.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That's horse ****. Things like ball tampering and time wasting are 'accepted cheating' because they're actually against the rules. The Laws actually say that the spirit of cricket you must follow is to accept the umpire's decision. Not walking is completely within - perhaps even enforced by - the rules.

It's not an overreaction to call someone who didn't walk a cheat, it's simply an outright lie.
Which reminds me of that curious situation that has arisen in the past when the batsman gets a nick, doesn't walk, is given not out, and then decides to walk
 

Top