1. Joined
    13 Sep '05
    Moves
    17200
    03 Jan '08 00:21
    Yesterday, in the 2nd between Australia and India, there were 3 really terible decisions which in hindsight, have had a big impact on the game.

    1. Ricky Ponting edges a ball down the legside but was given not out.
    2. Later, Ponting clearly edged the ball into his pads but given out LBW
    3. Andrew Symonds clearly edged a ball but was given not out.

    So 2 - 1 in Australia's favour - and Symonds has gone on to make 130-odd not out at stumps.

    If you look at points 1 and 3 above, Ponting and Symonds were both caught behind and given not out. Alot of people are that they should have walked and by not doing so, that they are bad sports and have cheated. I believe that the batsmen are entitled to stay their ground until given out and that it's the umpires job to give the batsman out.

    So I ask: Should batsmen walk if they know they're out? Or should they wait till the umpire makes his decision? Why?
  2. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91690
    03 Jan '08 01:102 edits
    Originally posted by AussieG
    Yesterday, in the 2nd between Australia and India, there were 3 really terible decisions which in hindsight, have had a big impact on the game.

    1. Ricky Ponting edges a ball down the legside but was given not out.
    2. Later, Ponting clearly edged the ball into his pads but given out LBW
    3. Andrew Symonds clearly edged a ball but was given not out.

    S walk if they know they're out? Or should they wait till the umpire makes his decision? Why?
    I always walk and I believe a batsman should get his ass off the pitch if he's out.
    I believe in the 'spirit of the game' you should walk if you know you're out.

    In the 'old days' a batsman could stand his ground, but with all these slow motion replays etc. you just look like an ass if you don't walk and everybody who watches the footage can see later that you were actually just lucky and a bad sportsman...


    If these decisions were referred to the 3rd umpire the batsmen would have been given out?
    I rest my case about using technology...
  3. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    03 Jan '08 01:25
    Originally posted by Crowley
    I always walk and I believe a batsman should get his ass off the pitch if he's out.
    I believe in the 'spirit of the game' you should walk if you know you're out.

    In the 'old days' a batsman could stand his ground, but with all these slow motion replays etc. you just look like an ass if you don't walk and everybody who watches the footage can see later th ...[text shortened]... d umpire the batsmen would have been given out?
    I rest my case about using technology...
    In Baseball, you would never admit that you were really out. I got to think they play it the same way in Japan, Cuba, or anywhere. It is the umpires job to make a call.

    If there is a rule in Cricket that you walk... you should walk. I guess you look like a jerk if you don't. In the US, you would look like a jerk if you said, "No, I'm really out on this play."

    P-
  4. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    55351
    03 Jan '08 01:35
    Originally posted by AussieG
    Yesterday, in the 2nd between Australia and India, there were 3 really terible decisions which in hindsight, have had a big impact on the game.

    1. Ricky Ponting edges a ball down the legside but was given not out.
    2. Later, Ponting clearly edged the ball into his pads but given out LBW
    3. Andrew Symonds clearly edged a ball but was given not out.

    S ...[text shortened]... walk if they know they're out? Or should they wait till the umpire makes his decision? Why?
    I think they should be chased up the green by a madman with a shotgun.

    But cricket has me praying for nuclear war, so I'm probably not the most objective umpire one can muster.
  5. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91690
    03 Jan '08 01:50
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    In Baseball, you would never admit that you were really out. I got to think they play it the same way in Japan, Cuba, or anywhere. It is the umpires job to make a call.

    If there is a rule in Cricket that you walk... you should walk. I guess you look like a jerk if you don't. In the US, you would look like a jerk if you said, "No, I'm really out on this play."

    P-
    There is no rule that you should walk - at least I think not!
    Some people, like me, consider it bad sportsmanship if you don't 'admit' to being out.
  6. Standard memberRed Night
    RHP Prophet
    pursuing happiness
    Joined
    22 Feb '06
    Moves
    13669
    03 Jan '08 17:27
    Originally posted by AussieG
    So I ask: Should batsmen walk if they know they're out? Or should they wait till the umpire makes his decision?
    Of course they should wait until the umpire makes his decision, umpires don't like to be shown up.

    I don't know how many times I have seen a batter head to first for a walk and then have the pitch called a strike.
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    14 Aug '04
    Moves
    23763
    03 Jan '08 19:58
    Maybe I am just a typical American who watches baseball and does not understand cricket, so perhaps I don't quite understand the issue and if so I appologize in advance, but often the runner has no idea if he was out. In baseball the ball could be bobbled, the fielder's foot could be off the bag. Although neutrality of an umpire is certainly important, a third person not involved in a play can usually more accurately determine what actually happened.
  8. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91690
    03 Jan '08 20:29
    Originally posted by Red Night
    Of course they should wait until the umpire makes his decision, umpires don't like to be shown up.

    I don't know how many times I have seen a batter head to first for a walk and then have the pitch called a strike.
    Troll.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    14 Aug '04
    Moves
    23763
    03 Jan '08 21:08
    Originally posted by Crowley
    Troll.
    what does that even mean?
  10. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    03 Jan '08 21:58
    Originally posted by jofaz
    what does that even mean?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
  11. Subscriberinvigorate
    Only 1 F in Uckfield
    Buxted UK
    Joined
    27 Feb '02
    Moves
    211797
    04 Jan '08 16:58
    Originally posted by AussieG
    Yesterday, in the 2nd between Australia and India, there were 3 really terible decisions which in hindsight, have had a big impact on the game.

    1. Ricky Ponting edges a ball down the legside but was given not out.
    2. Later, Ponting clearly edged the ball into his pads but given out LBW
    3. Andrew Symonds clearly edged a ball but was given not out.

    S ...[text shortened]... walk if they know they're out? Or should they wait till the umpire makes his decision? Why?
    yes they should always walk if they know they are out. it is a matter of honour. they will be respected by everyone for their honesty.
  12. Joined
    13 Sep '05
    Moves
    17200
    05 Jan '08 02:00
    There is absolutely no doubt that taking drugs in sport is cheating - no matter what spin you put on it. Cheating - pure and simple.

    However, how on earth could a batsman, or batter (or anyone playing sport) be accused of being a cheat after the umpire has made his decision? It's not the batsmans fault that the umpire made a correct or incorrect decision. The umpires are there to umpire and the players are there to play. It's pretty clear cut.

    There have been thousands of incidents over the years in all sports where the umpire, referee etc... have made a mistake. So why could that be the players problem? Do we have thousands of cheats playing top level sport? ..simply because the umpire got it wrong?

    Look at tennis for example.. I think that is one sport that can have many close calls per match. There will be some that are incorrect (probably) and these will probably even out over the course of the match.

    So a BIG Get Stuffed to all those who accuse the players of being cheats if they don't "walk" - or correct the umpire for a mistake.
  13. Berks.
    Joined
    27 Nov '04
    Moves
    41991
    06 Jan '08 00:39
    Originally posted by AussieG
    There is absolutely no doubt that taking drugs in sport is cheating - no matter what spin you put on it. Cheating - pure and simple.

    However, how on earth could a batsman, or batter (or anyone playing sport) be accused of being a cheat after the umpire has made his decision? It's not the batsmans fault that the umpire made a correct or incorrect decision. ...[text shortened]... use the players of being cheats if they don't "walk" - or correct the umpire for a mistake.
    An individual point in tennis is over the course of a match largely irrelevant, as is a single scoring shot in cricket. A wicket on the other hand is very significant.

    Of course in the tennis example, with the players movement and speed of the, it's very possible that the umpire is needed to make the decision. Whilst the player may feel it's in/out/etc, they may honestly not know for sure.

    Whilst that situation can exist in cricket (LBW, very low catches) where the players cannot be in a position to be sure, then the player must wait for the decision. If he knows that it is out then he really should walk. The umpire can always stop him if there is a reason which the player is unaware (e.g. a no ball).

    I don't like the whole attitude, and it's far from just being cricket, which prevails that something is fine provided the officials don't spot it. I've seen enough simulation watching football, plus appeals for decisions players know they don't deserve.

    Kumar Sangakkara walking earlier this year against England was good to see; it should be the norm, not a notable exception. There needs to be more sportsmanship, which includes being honest. No need to make officiating as hard as possible.
  14. Standard memberlordhighgus
    Kara Thrace &
    her special destiny
    Joined
    24 Apr '06
    Moves
    20456
    06 Jan '08 05:10
    India are 5 for 118 last day, one dusty decision against them so far. I think about 36 overs left. chasing 334.
  15. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91690
    06 Jan '08 06:14
    Originally posted by Peakite
    An individual point in tennis is over the course of a match largely irrelevant, as is a single scoring shot in cricket. A wicket on the other hand is very significant.

    Of course in the tennis example, with the players movement and speed of the, it's very possible that the umpire is needed to make the decision. Whilst the player may feel it's in/out/etc, t ...[text shortened]... rtsmanship, which includes being honest. No need to make officiating as hard as possible.
    Excellent post.
Back to Top