If a batsman doesn't walk out after being dismissed, Officials could put the big screens to use and show the replay in front of a crowd ready to boo and make him feel very dork. Unless the batsman is quite a wreck, that should distort his stance about staying put at the crease.
Not "walking" = cheating (?)
- Thread starter Owzat
- Start date
If there was ever any doubt about it, Broad has confirmed he knows he nicked it but he claims he didn't "cheat". Lehmann has an opposite view :
BBC Sport - Ashes 2013: Stuart Broad is a blatant cheat - Darren Lehmann
I agree with Lehmann, this whole culture of "walking" or "not a walker" is just bull's hit, it is a way of cheating but not being seen or called as a cheat. If you brush a ball on the snooker table and the umpire doesn't notice but you know it's a foul, you should call it or you are cheating. If you are playing Bridge/any card game where you follow suit, and don't follow suit but instead trump, you are cheating if you know it and don't come clean. I've known people not realise, that is a mistake on their part, but if they do it knowingly then they cheat. If someone playing crib is deliberately not pegging carefully they may claim it is up to their opponent to check their pegging, it is cheating though.
In the unlikely event you deliberately handle the ball at football, and are not the keeper, if you don't call it you are cheating. The latter is a harder comparison as people deliberately handling the ball are hardly likely to confess, but I suppose in a way it is comparable because you know what you should do and don't do it so are trying to "gain an unfair advantage" aka cheating.
It's all very well Broad talking "clear cut", he knew he was out. In the Agar incident it was erroneous umpiring at worst, questionable re whether any part of his foot were behind the line. He wouldn't know, not that we're accusing him of cheating, but if England and the fans point at that as crucial well at least that was an HONEST mistake, not a DISHONEST/cheating one.
So England are the immoral victors, deserved or not there is that lack of sportsmanship. Excusing it by "well they do it" is not really an excuse.
Stuart Broad said:
Darren Lehmann said:
BBC Sport - Ashes 2013: Stuart Broad is a blatant cheat - Darren Lehmann
I agree with Lehmann, this whole culture of "walking" or "not a walker" is just bull's hit, it is a way of cheating but not being seen or called as a cheat. If you brush a ball on the snooker table and the umpire doesn't notice but you know it's a foul, you should call it or you are cheating. If you are playing Bridge/any card game where you follow suit, and don't follow suit but instead trump, you are cheating if you know it and don't come clean. I've known people not realise, that is a mistake on their part, but if they do it knowingly then they cheat. If someone playing crib is deliberately not pegging carefully they may claim it is up to their opponent to check their pegging, it is cheating though.
In the unlikely event you deliberately handle the ball at football, and are not the keeper, if you don't call it you are cheating. The latter is a harder comparison as people deliberately handling the ball are hardly likely to confess, but I suppose in a way it is comparable because you know what you should do and don't do it so are trying to "gain an unfair advantage" aka cheating.
It's all very well Broad talking "clear cut", he knew he was out. In the Agar incident it was erroneous umpiring at worst, questionable re whether any part of his foot were behind the line. He wouldn't know, not that we're accusing him of cheating, but if England and the fans point at that as crucial well at least that was an HONEST mistake, not a DISHONEST/cheating one.
So England are the immoral victors, deserved or not there is that lack of sportsmanship. Excusing it by "well they do it" is not really an excuse.
I think Lehmann is stupid to make an issue out of it at this point. His players weren't walking way before Broad decided not to. I stick by my view at the time that Broad should have walked but was well within his rights not to.
dancingmongoose
International Coach
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
If you get a faint nick to the keeper, I'm ok with you standing your ground. Middling a ball to slip is like not walking when you hole out to long on. If he didn't walk in the third or fourth when he nicked Lyon I would be fine with that, but not the first test. That was cheating
Biggs
This guy gets it
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Profile Flag
- New Zealand (Silver Fern)
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
This is a pretty black and white issue. The umpires job (and now third umpires) is to give players out. That's their "roll" in the game... the idea that calling players "cheats" for standing their ground is ridiculous... what we SHOULD be demanding is better umpiring and accountability for the officials in charge. Players jobs are to score runs and take wickets. Not play 4th umpire.
Simbazz
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
But, it's against the spirit of cricket.
An arguement which I think is utter rubbish, I think Broad was in the wrong for standing his ground because generally you know if you've got some bat on it BUT I can't say that in an Ashes match I wouldn't wait for the umpire to make his decision.
After all, Broad had one job, to make runs. Can't do that if you're out, and this arguement got even sillier when Bresnan walked without hitting it!
Biggs
This guy gets it
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Profile Flag
- New Zealand (Silver Fern)
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
"Spirit of Cricket" should also mean having consistantly good, quality, umpiring. It should not always be on the players. There's huge endorsement, financial and more often than not entire career's held up in taking that crucial wicket or scoring an extra five runs. If I was in that position and my family relied on me to not only represent my country but secure the future for my wife and/or kids, I'm not thinking about the spirit of cricket and I'm standing there until the umpire raises his finger...
Better umpires is the solution, it's really the only one.
Better umpires is the solution, it's really the only one.
Simbazz
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
And this happens by firstly getting rid of the now out-dated rule about neutral umpires. There's little to no point in it with so much technology involved in the game.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
I don't understand this thinking, why is it any different?
because it looks a bit less iffy? murali looked like he was cheating, but after testing the ICC decided he wasn't, how something looks shouldn't really matter. just whether a rule is broken or not.
You've gotta think this is the beginning of the end for Lehmann as Coach, he's clearly lost the plot. You could come up with many instances of people not walking when they hit it and that's just from Lehmann's Captain Michael Clarke. To make an issue out of this is surreal. If he thinks that's cheating then he must obviously feel that his bowlers are for appealing for LBW when the batsman has hit it? Right?
Pressure getting to him for sure.
Pressure getting to him for sure.
used2bcool
Club Captain
I'm pretty sure that was meant to be a publicity stunt and not much more. Of course Lehmann cannot possibly be in any position to talk about the morality of walking. I mean, seriously, his arguments sound as if he's picked them up from comments on cricinfo (and we all know how intelligent those are). "Middling the ball to slip"? Which match was Lehmann watching? I have to believe a national coach is more intelligent than that, so the only conclusion I can draw is that all he's trying to do is gee up some support for the home Ashes.
Left_Hander
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
This interview was on Triple M. Normally that is a station that has a laugh, is a "man's" channel. It may have been taken out of context. However, I don't think Lehmann should have said this, not at this time now anyway. If he had made this comment after the first Test then maybe it would have gone down better but not when this series is almost over. I'd expect Broad to cop a lot of stick over here, but to be honest the incident would have happened ages ago. I'm kind of over it.
This is ridiculous. Players are there to win games, not to play fair. It's the umpires' job to make sure things are fair. Umpires make mistakes and give players out when they're not out all the time. It's only fair that a player shouldn't need to walk to balance it when he has to walk when he's clearly not out.
You may call it unsportsmanlike, but it's definitely not cheating since the definition of cheating involves breaking the rules of the game being played.
You may call it unsportsmanlike, but it's definitely not cheating since the definition of cheating involves breaking the rules of the game being played.
