17 years ago today..this happened

[garage flower]

Yeah, you've pretty much covered it. It still kinda sucks, but it's just not on the same level as claiming the catch when you know you haven't taken it.

As to the last paragraph, LOL. Have a good sleep, mate - I always enjoy your posts.

Well, I hung on for a little longer inspired by Richard's return, but I'm going to call it a day now. As ever with your good self, an interesting little debate.

 

[Richard]

It has nothing to do with movement. I really don't think it's that hard a concept to grasp. Go back to BoyBrumby's post about jurisprudence - it more than adequately explains the distinction, and how we treat the two behaviors differently.

I think it explains why we believe there to be a distinction when there is none.
It's not a hard concept to grasp, it is a hard concept to apply to cricketing matters such as this.
Where does passive end and active start? I think that's all a matter of opinion. You don't think standing there is anything other than implying "so d'you think I'm out then?" - I (and garage flower) think it's just about an exact translation of "oh, go on, give me not-out!"
By standing there, the batsman is doing nothing other than hoping to be given not-out.

 

[Slow Love™]

This is the nub of the issue. I agree that not giving yourself out when you know you're out is actively deceptive.

Except that it's passively deceptive. The rules say the umpire will make the decision to give somebody out. The batsman is entitled to an ethos that says he'll wait for the umpire to fulfill his obligation and make a decision. He can by courtesy lighten the burden by walking, but it's a courtesy, not an obligation on the part of the batsman. Yes, you can still say the batsman hasn't been completely honest in his conduct (and he hasn't), but it still doesn't make it an equal offence to actively creating a deception for the umpire.

 

[Slow Love™]

I think it explains why we believe there to be a distinction when there is none.
It's not a hard concept to grasp, it is a hard concept to apply to cricketing matters such as this.
Where does passive end and active start? I think that's all a matter of opinion. You don't think standing there is anything other than implying "so d'you think I'm out then?" - I (and garage flower) think it's just about an exact translation of "oh, go on, give me not-out!"
By standing there, the batsman is doing nothing other than hoping to be given not-out.

You guys are just re-iterating why you think it's dishonest conduct. I'm not saying it isn't. But I believe the distinction as to which is worse is very simple and easy to apply to this situation, as it also is in other contexts. Passive and active are quite easily definable, including within this specific example.

 

[Richard]

Well... all I can say is I don't think they are.
I'm interested as to what you reckon a batsman standing his ground is implying. Because I can't see how he's doing anything other than appealing for a not-out.

 

[Richard]

Except that it's passively deceptive. The rules say the umpire will make the decision to give somebody out. The batsman is entitled to an ethos that says he'll wait for the umpire to fulfill his obligation and make a decision. He can by courtesy lighten the burden by walking, but it's a courtesy, not an obligation on the part of the batsman. Yes, you can still say the batsman hasn't been completely honest in his conduct (and he hasn't), but it still doesn't make it an equal offence to actively creating a deception for the umpire.

Could it not be said that someone taking a catch and waiting for the Umpire to give his decision (ie refusing to say "I think I caught it" or "nah, didn't take it clean") is doing precisely the same?

 

[Slow Love™]

Well... all I can say is I don't think they are.
I'm interested as to what you reckon a batsman standing his ground is implying. Because I can't see how he's doing anything other than appealing for a not-out.

He's certainly hoping the umpire won't give him out. If he knows that this is out, he's certainly not being honest by not saying he's out or walking.

But it's still a passive act, by definition. We're going in circles here - perhaps I can make things clearer by referring to garage flower's post, where he suggested that a batsman might rub his upper arm when he'd gloved the ball, or even verbally suggest to an umpire that he hadn't hit it. I conceded immediately that crosses the line into active deception, and is far more comparable with the claiming of the (non) catch. However, if this doesn't occur, it's not in the same ballpark. That's about as clear as I can make things.

 

[Richard]

OK, so, would it be fair to set the things into two categories:
Active deception:
The batsman gloves a ball to short-leg, and immidiately points to his hip-bone, which the ball has glanced on it's way. The Umpire adjudicates not-out.
The wicketkeeper dives forward to take a big nick, and scoops it up just a split-second after it strikes the ground. He holds the ball high, celebrates with his team-mates, and nods at the Umpire, who looks at him. The Umpire raises his finger.
Inactive \ passive deception:
The batsman gloves to short-leg; he stands still, waiting. The Umpire stands immobile behind his dark blue spectacles.
The slip-fielder sees the ball strike the edge and dives forward, scooping the ball just after he clearly sees it hit the ground. He throws it up in a melancholy sort of way, while the men around him jump up and down. The Umpire doesn't hesisitate, and immidiately lifts the finger. The slipper joins-in his team-mates' celebrations.
That acceptible to you?

 

[Slow Love™]

Could it not be said that someone taking a catch and waiting for the Umpire to give his decision (ie refusing to say "I think I caught it" or "nah, didn't take it clean") is doing precisely the same?

Well, that's not claiming the catch, and if the fielder doesn't appeal (or celebrate the catch), I think you have a reasonable case that it's comparable. If, however, they claim the catch or appeal, I don't think it is.

 

[Richard]

Another thing, of course, that influences the thing is that the Third-Umpire is allowed to be consulted on catches that carry (however much use that often is ); he cannot be consulted on whether a nick or glove has been taken.
If he could, maybe the issue would not be so pronounced.

 

[Richard]

Well, that's not claiming the catch, and if the fielder doesn't appeal (or celebrate the catch), I think you have a reasonable case that it's comparable. If, however, they claim the catch or appeal, I don't think it is.

See post above this-'un.

 

[Slow Love™]

OK, so, would it be fair to set the things into two categories:
Active deception:
The batsman gloves a ball to short-leg, and immidiately points to his hip-bone, which the ball has glanced on it's way. The Umpire adjudicates not-out.
The wicketkeeper dives forward to take a big nick, and scoops it up just a split-second after it strikes the ground. He holds the ball high, celebrates with his team-mates, and nods at the Umpire, who looks at him. The Umpire raises his finger.
Inactive \ passive deception:
The batsman gloves to short-leg; he stands still, waiting. The Umpire stands immobile behind his dark blue spectacles.
The slip-fielder sees the ball strike the edge and dives forward, scooping the ball just after he clearly sees it hit the ground. He throws it up in a melancholy sort of way, while the men around him jump up and down. The Umpire doesn't hesisitate, and immidiately lifts the finger. The slipper joins-in his team-mates' celebrations.
That acceptible to you?

Well, that almost works for me, but I'm a little leery of celebrating the catch (because it's an overt indication that you "got" the batsman, when you didn't). Not too bad though. The batsman's obligated onus vs the fielder's obligated onus could be an interesting debate that could complicate matters, but I'm too tired to make it.

 

[Richard]

You'd be pleased, though, to see more Third-Umpire introduced to try and clean-up the matter?

 

[Slow Love™]

You'd be pleased, though, to see more Third-Umpire introduced to try and clean-up the matter?

For bat-pads and edges and the like? For sure, I'm completely in favor of using replays and snickometer for those kinds of decisions.

 

[Richard]

Don't let marc hear you talking about good ole Snicko!
His interesting idea is that mechanical aids should only be brought in if they can make it perfect - not if they can simply change 70% to 98%.

 

[Slow Love™]

Yeah, I know. To me, all that's required is that they be more accurate than the umpires. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who's ever used a replay or snickometer to judge whether an umpire has made a good call or not (ie, pretty much all of us) has already ceded that ground. This is why IMO, there isn't really a debate to be had on the accuracy of that kind of technology. I acknowledge there's a debate to be had regarding the extra time-consumption, even though I personally think the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages.

 

[marc71178]

If you brush the outside-edge with a ball, you will almost always feel it, that's how sensitive the hand is.

This is a hand wearing a big thick glove, right?

 

[marc71178]

Why is there no active deception?
You are standing your ground, hoping the decision is going to be not-out - pretending you have done nothing wrong when you know you have.

By standing there, you are making the umpire make a decision that has to be made.

By claiming a clear bump ball, you are making the umpire make a decision that shouldn't have to be made.

 

[marc71178]

Don't let marc hear you talking about good ole Snicko!
His interesting idea is that mechanical aids should only be brought in if they can make it perfect - not if they can simply change 70% to 98%.

So if it is 98% accurate, which ones will it get wrong?

The really tight ones, and given how many easy ones are in that 98%, then it isn't actually that accurate...

And umpires are far more than 70% accurate.

 

[Richard]

This is a hand wearing a big thick glove, right?

Remember the inside of a glove?
Sort of a thin piece of fabric.
Not something that will absorb many vibrations.