Cheating in Cricket

[6ry4nj]

Should a wicketkeeper be fined for appealing when he knows there wasn't an edge? A bowler for appealing when he knows it was going down leg? An umpire when he gives a batsmen out when he wasn't?

Should spinners be banned for consistently trying to influence the umpire by appealing for absolutely everything?

Yes the keeper and bowler should be fined. The key word is "knows". Since the word "knows" is absent from the other two questions, therefore they are cases that should not attract fines.

How do you know he knows? Well, assuming he doesn't admit/boast about it, you could still have a review process to determine did he or didn't he, although the standard of proof required would need to be quite high (something like 'beyond reasonable doubt')

 

[Sureshot]

Completely impossible to introduce a system of penalties based on whether someone knew they hit it/wasn't out, can't possibly prove it and you'd never be able to have any consistency with it.

It's a non-issue, we have a system which in all bar the most exceptional cases, proves, beyond any doubt, whether he hit it or not. We're just not allowed to use it, for hilarious reasons of insanity. Let the umpires make the decisions and give them the technology to support them in their job!

 

[puddleduck]

Haha, sometimes I worry about people. So you want to try players based on entirely circumstantial and hypothetical evidence? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Sureshot]

Officer: "Well, your honour, I think he was thinking about speeding, so I arrested and charged him."

 

[puddleduck]

Next thing, someone will suggest lie detector tests.

It's just such a shame no one has come up with a reasonable technological solution, by which they could aim to aid umpires in decision making.

My major issue is runouts. When will the authorities realise that we need TV replays to help decide such minute decisions. I realise that occassionally, there will barely be a frame in it, and as such the decision will perhaps not be satisfactory to either party, but I think it's about time we introduced technology to help with runouts

 

[teamindia]

Officer: "Well, your honour, I think he was thinking about speeding, so I arrested and charged him."

Judge: Did you mislead your investors Mr.Stanford
Stanford : No my lord
Judge: Documents examined by experts proves it.
Stanford: No my lord. I did not know.
Judge: No problem buddy you have 20 yrs to sit in prison and think how you did not know this.
Stanford : My lord this is unfair. This is BCCIs fault. I want this decision reviewed. But BCCI has vetoed it.

 

[puddleduck]

For my next witness, I'd like to call Mr Dunning, and then Mr Kruger.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Haha.

Fail thread.

 

[sami ullah khan]

So what do you suggest should batsmen do when Umpire gives them out when they are clearly not out. Sue the umps or something?

 

[6ry4nj]

Without an impartial system to adjudicate matters of what the accused knew and/or intended, legal systems don't work. Knowledge can make the difference between an accident and a crime against humanity (eg. Bhopal). The accused can't be allowed to get the benefit of the doubt in all such cases.

In most cases, if they swear blind they didn't know, there will be reasonable doubt and thus they won't be punished. However, if they are found to be lying after putting on such a show, even the most trivial offence then becomes hugely significant and in an ideal world career-ending.

For example, "hand of god" goals in football. Did Maradona/Henry know they were doing it? What do you think?

Also, it is only fair that someone who gets the benefit of the doubt over one question, will eventually wear out their welcome at the judiciary if they appear there multiple times in quick succession. At some stage the formerly reasonable doubt ceases to be so.

 

[puddleduck]

Right, so now you're suggesting punishing people on reputation as well? This just gets better!

They also probably didn't know what they were doing. If you've ever played sport, then you'll know that sometimes, the brain just doesn't act on any kind of rational thought process. It is the ref/umpire/judge/officals job to adjudicate on the day.

All that will happen, is people will work out ways to get better at cheating. Like Barcelona, or husbands and wives who get caught once, but given a second chance.

 

[teamindia]

So what do you suggest should batsmen do when Umpire gives them out when they are clearly not out. Sue the umps or something?

The players review the umpires after every game. Umpires do get *retired* soon if they keep repeating mistakes over and over again or removed from the elite panel. Even then they are committing a mistake and batsmen are the only players who get away with cheating forever. If umpires cheat and give a batsman out then I am pretty sure the home board will pursue the matter and all match fixing claims will rise.

 

[puddleduck]

You're an absolute idiot. The rules state you do what the umpire says, so no one has cheated by not walking

If the rules said walk, then they'd be cheating. It doesn't, they're not. You're wrong, just accept it for once instead of making yourself look stupider.

 

[teamindia]

You're an absolute idiot. The rules state you do what the umpire says, so no one has cheated by not walking

If the rules said walk, then they'd be cheating. It doesn't, they're not. You're wrong, just accept it for once instead of making yourself look stupider.

Two personal insults in one day ..and from a guy who said "jealousy" was a personal attack. I would not want mods to ban you..but then I am pretty sure the rules say otherwise

 

[puddleduck]

I can only assume you've posted in response to me. I can't read it, as all it took was unveiling two of your well constructed posts for me to slip into madness. I shan't be making that mistake again, life is too short, and I'd rather not waste needless brain power.

I don't know what you posted and I don't much care based on past experience. However, I do know that there was no need for me to call you an idiot and for that I offer a completely unconditional apology.