Commonwealth Bank Series

That's fair enough Stevie but I feel strongly about this. I'm normally all for the 'sporting' aspect of cricket which walking no doubt is, but I always feel that umpires should give batsmen out and not the batsmen themselves. I'm a bowler myself so you'd think i'd have a different opinion, but I just think that a batsman should always stay in until he's given out.

That's not to say I don't appreciate it when a batsman walks because I do think it's nice to see, but I just don't think walking should be done.
 
manee said:
No they should not. What is the point of the umpire then. Also, if you are going to make your own decisions when batting, you will when bowling too, leading to complaints against an umpire.

Umpires get decisions wrong, it happens as we all know. If you know you've hit it, you should walk. If you're not sure you've hit it then fair enough, but if you know you have then you should go!
 
Nope, the umpire calls the game. If you walk when you get out and then get given out when you're not then you're making the game a conspricy against yourself and really you're not going to get anywhere with you're cricket and that takes the enjoyment out of batting.
 
Yea don't walk gee. And a bolwer shouldn't go up to the bastmen in intimidation, and scream the question of "Did you hit it!" So uncool! So far lately has the play been...
 
I agree. Having played at a decent level for my age, I have been on the end of some Shocking decisions from Umpires, As the game becomes more competitive I think that Walking will just disappear. I hardly ever walk. Unless it's painfully obvious, but I'm not being given.
 
So a batsman shouldn't walk? But a bowler shouldn't be able to have a scream when a batsman is given not out when he is clearly out?
 
davefryer said:
1) Perhaps if you read the previous post by Andrew you would understand my irritation at his condescension.

2) If you understand the meaning of "context" (especially rare in journalists) you will understand the meaning of subjectual relativity.


As to your addendum, you're completely correct. Sure, Ponting was unlucky but then so were England when Hussey was clearly out. So it goes. I still believe that it would be a bad thing not to have the human element in umpiring decisions.
I think you'll find that a couple of senior players will be "rested" very shortly in order to give a couple of young blokes a shot


So why did you keep calling England the UK cricket team then?

I take it it's not out of stupidity and rather just trolling?
 
Contreversial decisions have fueled at least two pages of this thread...do you think batsman should walk and get rid of that precious after match discussion?
 
Noone should shout really. Remember the time when cricket was considered a gentlemans sport? You appeal, umpire makes his desicion, and that's that.
 
woodywiss sa sa said:
Unless it's painfully obvious, but I'm not being given.

That's what I'm saying. I also added in my last post that if you have any doubt, then you let the umpire make the decision. I appreciate that it's not going to happen much, but it should.
 
Walking is an option but definately shouldn't become a trend.

Hussey stated in the paper yesterday in the Sunday Telegraph that he doesn't walk till the finger is up. That's fair enough since it is an umpires call.

Should just leave it too the fact that umpires umpire. Let the umpires take the blame for the bad decisions.
 
But that nick was bloody funny as...Hussey's face!!!! What a crack-up!!!! Oh well just move on...poor poms lost another game of cricket nothing new:)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top