• 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!

Stapel

International Regular
So says Mark Nicholas in an article on cricinfo

In my own cricket league, which is the furthest away form top level cricket imaginable, there is a pretty fair understanding that the batsman knows better than the (inexperienced) umpire anyway. So we simply go by the batsman's decision. Hardly ever goes wrong.

I guess that doesn't work at Test level. If a batsman doesn't nick it, yet is given out, he doesn't have the right to stay in! Though he does have the option to review it!

Mark Nicholas states the following in his article:

Pretty much always, batsmen know whether or not they have hit the ball, and if they have, well, they are out.
But is that really so? During this summer's Ashes, we've seen Michael Clarke review, whereas he had clearly nicked it. And we've seen Joe Root no reviewing, while he had clearly not nicked it.

So, would it really work, even if batsmen were all being honoust?
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I can't believe anyone can still come out with "the batsman knows if he's hit it" rubbish after the Ashes.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well if we didn't have proof that Nicholas was a complete dunderhead, we do now. Rubbish article and rubbish opinion
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I can't believe anyone can still come out with "the batsman knows if he's hit it" rubbish after the Ashes.
I was under the impression that most of the batsmen in the Ashes chose/didn't choose to review more out of fear that the nick wouldn't show up on hot spot than with them not knowing whether they'd nicked it.
But yeah, For the slightest of feathers, it's possible that the batsman doesn't know
 

Stapel

International Regular
I was under the impression that most of the batsmen in the Ashes chose/didn't choose to review more out of fear that the nick wouldn't show up on hot spot than with them not knowing whether they'd nicked it.
But yeah, For the slightest of feathers, it's possible that the batsman doesn't know
Michael Clarke reviewed one he had clearly nicked. One would think he would only have reviewed it, if he was pretty damn sure he didn't nick it! Makes one wonder....
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The hoariest of hoary old chestnuts in the game.

I played a reasonable amount of cricket in my younger days at a very low standard where the umpire was generally a member of your own team or occasionally some welcome guest who had little or no idea of the finer points of the laws but was happy just to be involved. That sort of cricket won't work if batsmen don't walk and I always did and I don't ever remember there being an "incident" when someone didn't - heck some folk even walked for lbws, although I don't ever remember doing that.

What I didn't do was unilaterally walk - I would wait for appeals and just occasionally got a feather that the fielding side didn't notice and I have to say I really struggle with the concept that it is possible as a batsman to make any sort of contact with the ball without realising it, and its not the sound, its more through the sense of touch that you realise it.

But it seems it is possible - Dennis Amiss was a noted walker and once, in a Test against India when he was still struggling for his Test place, he walked for a bat pad when India appealed and later got a bollocking from Alan Knott, the non-striker, who told him in no uncertain terms that he hadn't got within a bull's roar of the ball - I had the pleasure of chatting to Mr Amiss a few months ago and he confirmed the story and that he genuinely had no idea whether he had hit the ball or not, but assumed he must have because of the confidence of the appeal

So I am now prepared to believe that there are times when the batsman doesn't know, and of course it follows that there must be many more when the fieldsman isn't sure but its not cheating for him to appeal, so I don't think its cheating for the batter to stay put - I'd much rather everyone walked, but they never will
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
So I am now prepared to believe that there are times when the batsman doesn't know, and of course it follows that there must be many more when the fieldsman isn't sure but its not cheating for him to appeal, so I don't think its cheating for the batter to stay put - I'd much rather everyone walked, but they never will
Pretty much this.
Gilchrist is probably the most consistent walker but are we to brand him a cheat because he claimed a catch which wasn't within sneezing distance of Dravid's bat in Sydney? Sometimes, you just don't know... Most of the time as fielders, sometimes as batsmen. Branding non-walkers as cheats just opens a can of worms
 
Last edited:

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
Bowlers are never chastised when they go up for a catch and it isn't out but it's given anyway, so why should batsmen be branded cheats when they go by the umpire's decision? It blows my mind tbh, at test level (and any level of cricket where you have a decent umpire) it's gonna even out pretty well as far as decisions go, you get some your way, some go against you, just let that be the order and do what the umpire says - simple, no one is cheating if they simply do what the umpire says.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bowlers are never chastised when they go up for a catch and it isn't out but it's given anyway, so why should batsmen be branded cheats when they go by the umpire's decision? It blows my mind tbh, at test level (and any level of cricket where you have a decent umpire) it's gonna even out pretty well as far as decisions go, you get some your way, some go against you, just let that be the order and do what the umpire says - simple, no one is cheating if they simply do what the umpire says.
I think you're being too simplistic there - on that basis lying in court would be acceptable as long as the Judge believed you, which it clearly isn't, or at least I don't think so anyway
 

Flem274*

123/5
Even if what Nicholas said was mostly true it still doesn't allow for the situation where the player simply gets it wrong, which is bound to happen because they're only human.
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
I think you're being too simplistic there - on that basis lying in court would be acceptable as long as the Judge believed you, which it clearly isn't, or at least I don't think so anyway
it's a simple thing, the umpire gets some right and some wrong, I'm saying there is no reason for the batsman to tip the balance in the favour of the bowler.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Leaving aside all the cheating nonsense, if everyone walked, it would take a great deal away from the spectacle of the game, imo. Not walking when you know you're out may not be the "gentlemanly" thing to do, but one of the best aspects of watching cricket is the bowling side going up in appeal and that nerve-racking half a second ( five seconds if the umpires Bucknor) before the umpire comes to a decision. Purely from the point of view of a spectator, the game would be poorer if everyone just walked
 

adub

International Captain
Playing in park cricket I would always walk if I knicked one and we didn't have neutral umpires. Just felt it's not like we're playing for sheep stations and it wasn't the sort of pressure you should put on your team mates. Unfortunately played against and with plenty of guys who didn't see it like that.

A neutral ump though it was definitely a case of let him make the call - I know I got enough howlers to more than compensate for the few I got away with.

I do agree with fredfertang though on bat pad stuff. I never had any doubts about what ones I'd got a piece of when it was just a drive or cut or pull. You just know. But against the spinners with bat hitting pad half the time you wouldn't have any idea. Can't expect walking then.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
 
Last edited:

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Ive always considered that Mark Nicholas represented much I disliked about cricketers and this just adds further fuel.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Leaving aside all the cheating nonsense, if everyone walked, it would take a great deal away from the spectacle of the game, imo. Not walking when you know you're out may not be the "gentlemanly" thing to do, but one of the best aspects of watching cricket is the bowling side going up in appeal and that nerve-racking half a second ( five seconds if the umpires Bucknor) before the umpire comes to a decision. Purely from the point of view of a spectator, the game would be poorer if everyone just walked
This is why I actually really enjoy "tactical" use of the DRS. There's that moment of wondering whether the batsman has the courage/ego/poor or good judgement to use one of the reviews on his own wicket, and then there's that suspense with say LBWs where you see the no ball, then whether it was pitching in line, whether there was an inside edge, whether it hit him in line and finally whether it was hitting. I quite enjoy that.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
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.
****ing bingo.

It is the umpire's job to make decisions, not the players.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
I think the worst part of the always-know-they've-hit-it myth is the implied self-aggrandisement. "I always knew when I'd hit it, trust me." Ugh.

At any rate, even if cricketers did always know they'd hit it (they don't) and even if it was an obligation to walk in Tests until recently (it wasn't) then I'd still argue that walking has no place in the modern game.

Been thinking about the walking thing.

Walking has a place in most, non-Test cricket because, the way I see it, an umpiring **** up just doesn't feel like part of the game. It is, of course, but it doesn't sit right. You feel as though something other than batting, bowling and fielding has done something. That's what was good about Bell being recalled when he was run out against India - since it seemed like a non-cricketing ****up, the Indians thought they were right and the rules were wrong in this case by recalling him.

But when you bring DRS into the hands of the players, it becomes unarguably a part of their game. Players have to be tactical about how to use it - either aggressively, aiming to get any chance that comes their way, or defensively, aiming to let the odd chance slide to make sure they get the ones that are there for sure. If you choose the former, and then you miss out on an obvious decision down the line, the opposition is not only within his rights to punish your poor strategy, but pretty much obligated to. It's no different to having your keeper stand up to a quick when he's not good enough and then watching the byes roll down - walking in this case is like not running for those byes. It's not only unnecessary, it's a failure to punish poor cricketing strategy.

I don't like this, really, at all. I don't want use-of-DRS-skill to become part of the game alongside batting, bowling and fielding, so I don't want it to be a players' decision. And I want there to be the option to walk - just like "withdrawing the appeal", I think there's something a little bit special about how sometimes, you can say what feels right is better than the literal rules. But as long as DRS is in the players' hands, we can't have it. It just doesn't make sense.
 

watson

Banned
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.
 

Top