You know what really grinds my cricketing gears?

[Richard]

and

and

and

and


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

on the

as carried out by

Tell me - what do you make of the practice of rubbing the cricket ball on the trousers, and taking mud off it?

 

[Richard]

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.

I feel it's up to me - I got them out and if anyone ever got given n\o when I knew beyond doubt it was out (hasn't happened yet in my career - there's been the odd one I wasn't sure about and seemingly nor was the Umpire) I'd be exceptionally annoyed with both batsman and Umpire. No batsman, in my view, has any right to nick me to a fielder and not end-up back in the pavilion.

 

[GotSpin]

I feel it's up to me - I got them out and if anyone ever got given n\o when I knew beyond doubt it was out (hasn't happened yet in my career - there's been the odd one I wasn't sure about and seemingly nor was the Umpire) I'd be exceptionally annoyed with both batsman and Umpire. No batsman, in my view, has any right to nick me to a fielder and not end-up back in the pavilion.

From personal experience, i found i was given out when i wasn't out more times than when i wasn't given out but i actually should have been. IMO, batsmen should never walk when a decision happens to favour them, because no doubt, they'll cop some poor decisions later on.

 

[andruid]

Tell me - what do you make of the practice of rubbing the cricket ball on the trousers, and taking mud off it?

It looks Ghey

 

[Furball]

Batsmen should never walk.

It is the job of the umpire to give them out.

A batsman has no recourse if he knows he's blatantly not out (eg. knows he's edged a ball onto his pads but is given LBW), so why should he walk if he nicks it?

 

[Uppercut]

Batsmen should never walk.

It is the job of the umpire to give them out.

A batsman has no recourse if he knows he's blatantly not out (eg. knows he's edged a ball onto his pads but is given LBW), so why should he walk if he nicks it?

There is no argument against that. All logic points to not walking. Walking is a tradition, it's from a time when cricket wasn't a matter of life and death and if you were going to stay in and force your fellow players to spend a day in the field trying to get you out twice, it wouldn't be courteous. It's part of the amateur spirit that's missing from the game today, for better or worse. When someone like Adam Gilchrist gets to the top of the game but always plays the game in that long-lost spirit, you gotta show some respect!

 

[Burgey]

Tell me - what do you make of the practice of rubbing the cricket ball on the trousers, and taking mud off it?

I make nothing of it Rich, because when you rub the ball against your trousers (a time honoured practice which has the imprimtaeur of the powers that run the game) you do it in front of everyone. Likewise, these days if there's mud on the ball, everyone knows after some of the events of earlier this decade and late last, you go to the umpire and say "There's dirt/mud on it, and I want to remove it" whereupon the umpire looks at you and says "Ok".

I can't imagine Tresco or whoever else does the other malarky walking up to an umpire and saying "By the way, I'm about to have a big golly on the ball and I've been using these things in my mouth which I've worked out after a few years of experimentation do funny things to the ball when it's propelled in the general direction of the batsman. Is that ok?"

Having said that, there's nothing wrong with the time honoured tradition in park cricket of taking a ball that's wet when you're forced from the field and placing it in the pie oven for 45 minutes while the ground dries, then using it again. The fact it now has a seam about 3/4 of an inch hgh is merely coincidence.

Try it. It works. It's not cheating. I mean, how can you know it's really had an effect on how the ball behaves, it's mere supposition, etc. etc. But, if we bowl with it in that condition and you happen to edge one, I do expect you to walk. It's only good sportsmanship.

 

[Top_Cat]

I feel it's up to me - I got them out and if anyone ever got given n\o when I knew beyond doubt it was out (hasn't happened yet in my career - there's been the odd one I wasn't sure about and seemingly nor was the Umpire) I'd be exceptionally annoyed with both batsman and Umpire. No batsman, in my view, has any right to nick me to a fielder and not end-up back in the pavilion.

Geez, suck it up Princess. There are so many situations in life, metaphorically-speaking, where a batsman knows he nicked one and the umpire didn't hear it so can't give it out (try prosecuting a major-indictable through the courts - can I get a hell-yeah from the lawyers/coppers in the galley?). You just have to deal with it, bitching at concerned parties changes absolutely nothing in 99% of cases, especially out on the field of play.

 

[pup11]

Batsmen should never walk.

It is the job of the umpire to give them out.

A batsman has no recourse if he knows he's blatantly not out (eg. knows he's edged a ball onto his pads but is given LBW), so why should he walk if he nicks it?

I think that's a fair point, when in the name of fair play people expect batsman to walk off when they nick a ball, then why can't the umpires take their word when the ball deflects of the inside edge of their bat onto their pads during a lbw appeal.

 

[Richard]

Geez, suck it up Princess. There are so many situations in life, metaphorically-speaking, where a batsman knows he nicked one and the umpire didn't hear it so can't give it out (try prosecuting a major-indictable through the courts - can I get a hell-yeah from the lawyers/coppers in the galley?). You just have to deal with it, bitching at concerned parties changes absolutely nothing in 99% of cases, especially out on the field of play.

Oh I know that, but I still do it - makes me feel marginally better.

 

[Richard]

I make nothing of it Rich, because when you rub the ball against your trousers (a time honoured practice which has the imprimtaeur of the powers that run the game) you do it in front of everyone. Likewise, these days if there's mud on the ball, everyone knows after some of the events of earlier this decade and late last, you go to the umpire and say "There's dirt/mud on it, and I want to remove it" whereupon the umpire looks at you and says "Ok".

I can't imagine Tresco or whoever else does the other malarky walking up to an umpire and saying "By the way, I'm about to have a big golly on the ball and I've been using these things in my mouth which I've worked out after a few years of experimentation do funny things to the ball when it's propelled in the general direction of the batsman. Is that ok?"

Having said that, there's nothing wrong with the time honoured tradition in park cricket of taking a ball that's wet when you're forced from the field and placing it in the pie oven for 45 minutes while the ground dries, then using it again. The fact it now has a seam about 3/4 of an inch hgh is merely coincidence.

Try it. It works. It's not cheating. I mean, how can you know it's really had an effect on how the ball behaves, it's mere supposition, etc. etc. But, if we bowl with it in that condition and you happen to edge one, I do expect you to walk. It's only good sportsmanship.

So is applying saliva and sweat to the ball wrong then?

You seem to be getting the idea that people are actually putting mint juice on the ball - they're not. They're improving the quality of their saliva so as to get a better shine on the ball.

The mints don't do anything to the ball - the mints do something to the saliva, the saliva (and trousers) shine the ball and the ball when shined behaves better (yes, better - the game is about bowling, not batting ) than it does if it's not shined at all.

 

[Richard]

From personal experience, i found i was given out when i wasn't out more times than when i wasn't given out but i actually should have been.

Yeah but then you add dropped catches - all batsmen get far more let-offs than saw-offs.

 

[Uppercut]

So is applying saliva and sweat to the ball wrong then?

You seem to be getting the idea that people are actually putting mint juice on the ball - they're not. They're improving the quality of their saliva so as to get a better shine on the ball.

The mints don't do anything to the ball - the mints do something to the saliva, the saliva (and trousers) shine the ball and the ball when shined behaves better (yes, better - the game is about bowling, not batting ) than it does if it's not shined at all.

How do you know exactly, that they're not putting mint juice on the ball?

 

[GIMH]

Would love to see the reaction of the team-mates if someone walked during the T20 for 20 this November

 

[Richard]

How do you know exactly, that they're not putting mint juice on the ball?

Well, because it'd be pretty blatant, no?

It'd also be pretty damn difficult.

 

[Uppercut]

Well, because it'd be pretty blatant, no?

It'd also be pretty damn difficult.

Not really, just stick it in your mouth, wet it, and add minty residue to ball. Here's one i made earlier...

 

[GIMH]

just stick it in your mouth, wet...

 

[Richard]

Not really, just stick it in your mouth, wet it, and add minty residue to ball. Here's one i made earlier...

Why do I get the feeling no-one was actually doing that?

Apart from the fact it'd very probably do more harm than good to the prospects of swing.

 

[Uppercut]

I was merely referring to their sucking on hard, hard mints, before using the sticky residue formed to shine their balls. If you're immature enough to see obscure innuendos in such an act then, frankly, you should seek help.

 

[Uppercut]

Why do I get the feeling no-one was actually doing that?

Apart from the fact it'd very probably do more harm than good to the prospects of swing.

Well it's just as awkward to believe that murray mints contain a secret ingredient that turns one's saliva into Wonderswing cricket ball polish.