You know what really grinds my cricketing gears?

[vic_orthdox]

More in reference to when I didn't walk. Our own player gave it not out, and I just thought, "Yeah, awesome." Didn't understand the ettiquette at that level, and copped an absolute pasting for it.

 

[Julian87]

Why? They are morally (in cricket terms) better than those who don't walk, because they reduce the chance of undeserved runs being scored.

What a joke. Hardly undeserved when you consider the times they were given out when they didn't hit it, the ball pitched outside leg or they got an inside edge onto their pads.

 

[Julian87]

It's a mark of respect for the other team. It's saying, fair play, you got me out, I'm not going to pretend otherwise. In Gilchrist's case it was more "we don't need to cheat to beat you".

It doesn't make a great deal of practical sense, it's just sportsmanship.

No it isn't. Accepting the umpire's decision is sportsmanship, not making the decision for him.

 

[Richard]

What a joke. Hardly undeserved when you consider the times they were given out when they didn't hit it, the ball pitched outside leg or they got an inside edge onto their pads.

And dropped catches substantially outnumber those. All batsmen get far more good luck than bad.

In any case, if you walk you're then entitled to make a fuss when you get a bad decision.

 

[pup11]

And dropped catches substantially outnumber those. All batsmen get far more good luck than bad.

In any case, if you walk you're then entitled to make a fuss when you get a bad decision.

I don't think making much fuss if you get a bad decision makes much of difference even for a walker, as once an umpire makes a decision, then it hardly gets overturned, and btw why are these umpires being paid by such fat pay-cheques when they need a player' assistance to make the correct decision, i for one believe that every player should let the umpire make the decision.

 

[Richard]

In other words, increase the likelihood of a decision being made wrongly.

 

[Uppercut]

And dropped catches substantially outnumber those. All batsmen get far more good luck than bad.

In any case, if you walk you're then entitled to make a fuss when you get a bad decision.

Well their achievements are relative to each other, so it doesn't make sense to say they all get more good luck than bad.

Anyway, those who make a logical argument against walking are completely missing the point. It's amateur ethos to say: I'm not going to cheat you out of victory, i know i was out so i'm not going to pretend otherwise. It's all about playing in a healthy spirit, not about making the game as fair as possible.

 

[Richard]

Nah, making the game as fair as possible should be the first object of everyone playing. I know it isn't, but those who don't have interest in fair play have no right to be playing, for mine, and I'd be quite happy to kick 'em out.

 

[GIMH]

Wouldn't be many left!

 

[Richard]

Well, maybe a good few might go - but also I think a good few might reassess their priorities.

 

[Langeveldt]

I don't know how it is in the cricket you've played, but often at suburban levels here, you are only allocated one umpire, and sometimes he doesn't show, or they just plain don't have enough umpires. So one of the players from the batting team has to umpire. In this situation, it's expected that the batsman should walk, and not put the impetus on an umpire who is in an awkward position.

I've played in the Eastern Cape league with supplied umpires, at college with supplied umpires and village where the batting team does the umpiring.. Regardless of which, I never walk, but I don't go confronting them if they've made a poor decision either, whether I'm batting or bowling.. Thats just the way I play my cricket

 

[pup11]

In other words, increase the likelihood of a decision being made wrongly.

So just bring in some sort fool-proof technology that would deliver 100% right decisions, because as long a umpires make the decision they would make errors because they are human, but the whole deal of putting a cricketer under the spot and expecting him to walk-off even when the umpire is not sure whether he is out or not isn't fair.
When a bloke takes up cricket as his profession, his whole life is riding on the fact whether he can be successful or not, so he's already under severe pressure, and in that sort of scenario when there is cut-throat competition all-around, a player (especially a young player) wants to be as consistent as possible, as his spot is more or less could be at stake all the time, so with all this its not practical to expect a player to walk, and its not also fair to judge a player' honesty just over the fact whether he walks or not,in his personal life he might be a very honest and top bloke, but when so much is at stake for that individual, he is bound to put honesty on the back-burner for a while, and let the umpire make the decision.
People like Lara, Gilly or Sanga can afford to walk and mind you i am not taking anything away there gesture, but they were more or less certainties in their sides so they can afford to walk, whereas that isn't that easy for an upcoming player who is trying to cement his place in the side.

 

[Richard]

Oh, yeah, not walking can be a way to disguise your inadequacies, true. But that doesn't mean you deserve to be able to do that.

Of course, if some form of near-foolproof technology is brought in that'll mean walking or not, at the highest level, becomes unimportant, because before long everyone will realise that they might as well, just to save time. But in the meantime, those who walk play the game better than those who don't.

 

[Langeveldt]

Oh, yeah, not walking can be a way to disguise your inadequacies, true. But that doesn't mean you deserve to be able to do that.

Of course, if some form of near-foolproof technology is brought in that'll mean walking or not, at the highest level, becomes unimportant, because before long everyone will realise that they might as well, just to save time. But in the meantime, those who walk play the game better than those who don't.

Oh do they? Thats nice..

 

[Richard]

It isn't really very nice, hactually. But that's the way it is, for mine.

 

[Jamee999]

those who walk play the game better than those who don't.

I could walk every time I thought I was out, and Kevin Pietersen would still utterly destroy me as a cricketer.

 

[Richard]

That's not what I mean by "play the game well". I mean play "within the spirit".

 

[Burgey]

Nah, making the game as fair as possible should be the first object of everyone playing. I know it isn't, but those who don't have interest in fair play have no right to be playing, for mine, and I'd be quite happy to kick 'em out.

and

Well, maybe a good few might go - but also I think a good few might reassess their priorities.

and

Why? They are morally (in cricket terms) better than those who don't walk, because they reduce the chance of undeserved runs being scored.

and

What about when they know their chances of getting away with it are zero? So therefore they'd only speed-up the game by walking.

and

I was about 16 when I first gave a team-mate out. It was an lbw at least.

Never yet had to give a team-mate out caught-behind - thought I was going to in the Pickup match in 2006 (the one where the Hingston photography including me bowling and pretending to bowl dates from) but gave him a few seconds to walk and eventually he did.

do not reconcile with a laissez faire approach to the evil of

on the

as carried out by

 

[Top_Cat]

I've played in the Eastern Cape league with supplied umpires, at college with supplied umpires and village where the batting team does the umpiring.. Regardless of which, I never walk, but I don't go confronting them if they've made a poor decision either, whether I'm batting or bowling.. Thats just the way I play my cricket

This, for me. I never walk for reasons of fairness but then I don't bitch when I get an LBW or catch-behind not go my way when bowling, nor when I cop a roughie with bat in hand (which is rare; middle peg cartwheeling back to the 'keeper is pretty unambiguous and the most frequent dismissal for me). Moaning about poor decisions is absolutely pointless and almost never changes the outcome

I have walked, though; nicked one and walked off without waiting for the decision but only because I thought the finger was going up anyway. Was very surprised when the umpire told me later he didn't hear a nick and wasn't going to give it.

 

[Goughy]

I've played in the Eastern Cape league with supplied umpires, at college with supplied umpires and village where the batting team does the umpiring.. Regardless of which, I never walk, but I don't go confronting them if they've made a poor decision either, whether I'm batting or bowling.. Thats just the way I play my cricket

Same here.

I dont expect and opponent to walk when Im bowling either. Find it amusing when one does as its up to the umpire not them.