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?
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...
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cricket: Should batsmen walk?
03 Jan '08 00:21
Back to Top