Not "walking" = cheating (?)

[Bluey Zarsoff]

Australian batsman have never been walkers. Adam Gilchrist being one of the few exceptions.

 

[Villain]

"If you start banning players who don't walk, Australia wouldn't have a team" - Ian Botham

 

[SK-ZC]

its Batsman Wish , if umpire declares as not out why he want to leave the field ? is that was against ICC rules ?

 

[barmyarmy]

I was thinking about this earlier; Australia have played this beautifully.
If in Australia Stuart Broad gets an edge he will walk (like he did a couple of times after Trent Bridge). If in Australia any Australian gets an edge they will stand their ground.
It's win, win.

 

[Bluey Zarsoff]

I was thinking about this earlier; Australia have played this beautifully.
If in Australia Stuart Broad gets an edge he will walk (like he did a couple of times after Trent Bridge). If in Australia any Australian gets an edge they will stand their ground.
It's win, win.

It sure is, and I'm sure Australian crowds have got a nice warm welcome in store for Broad. Particularly on Boxing Day in Melbourne.

 

[barmyarmy]

Well we'll be 3-0 up by then

 

[Bluey Zarsoff]

Well we'll be 3-0 up by then

I love your unfounded overconfidence

 

[barmyarmy]

5-0 ought to shut even bay 13 up

 

[Bluey Zarsoff]

5-0 ought to shut even bay 13 up

Dreams are free

 

[barmyarmy]

Like Australian wickets in that way.

 

[Bluey Zarsoff]

Like Australian wickets in that way.

You are trying way too hard

 

[Owzat]

I was thinking about this earlier; Australia have played this beautifully.
If in Australia Stuart Broad gets an edge he will walk (like he did a couple of times after Trent Bridge). If in Australia any Australian gets an edge they will stand their ground.
It's win, win.

I wish they hadn't shut up Lehmann, I think cricket and cricketers should take a look at themselves and if we need to call "non walkers" "cheats" in order to bring about a bit more fair play and remove some hostility then I say let's do it.

Simply letting a batsman stand his ground know vocally that he's a "cheat" will be enough to rattle them, they'll not like being called a "cheat" and no matter how much people rationalise it as being down to the umpires to give batsmen out, if you know you are out then you should depart the crease.

Even if you don't believe the laws state you are out if it is caught off the bat and nothing about umpires needing to give it, if you know you hit it and it was caught clean, you should leave or else you are trying to force a mistake from the umpire/con the umpire and gain an unfair advantage - aka cheating in most books.

The whole label of "walkers" and "non-walkers" is just a camouflage, of course if reviews were used for all such incidents instead of relying on one side or t'other having one left, then Broad would have had to go. But we all know the review system is flawed and I think part of the flaw is part of the design to "protect" umpires ("umpire's call")

If a system has a hidden agenda then it can't work, tennis calls are out or in, not "umpire's call". If dorkeye doesn't know if the ball is hitting the stumps or not it isn't reliable full stop, if it calls it as hitting then it should be seen as hitting, not "only part hitting". If we can't be sure it is hitting at all when dorkeye shows half the ball hitting then what kind of "technology" and trust is that?!?!?!?

Besides, if dorkeye says it is hitting then everyone will accept that, it exacerbates umpire flaws if the way the umpire gives it (out/not out) then affects a review in terms of "umpire's call". If the batsmen is given out, but on review it is "umpire's call" he remains out, but if the umpire had said not out then the bowling side review would have failed, hardly fair given reviews are at stake.

Anyway I digress, as I may well have said earlier, that people condone cheating as a batsman's prerogative, they're either a "walker" or not, is sad enough in its own right. I assume they play cricket and stand their ground, if not then why do they condone those who do - when they know they're out..............?!?!?!?

Strikes me as like being the House of Commons where the word liar I believe is prohibited, falsehood teller, fibber, misrepresenter of the truth etc are just watered down versions of the same essence, like "non-walker" is "cheat" in cricketspeak

----------

its Batsman Wish , if umpire declares as not out why he want to leave the field ? is that was against ICC rules ?

So you're saying if a batsman doesn't want to be out he can decide to not be out, as long as the umpire doesn't catch him "wishing" not to be out??!?!?

I've read the law, I've posted it in here I'm sure, it says nothing in the dismissals about a batsman only being out if the umpire gives it.

Law 32 (Caught)

The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground.

It does actually omit the touching of the glove while the bat is in hand, but that may be covered as part of a law on equipment elsewhere. The basic law says if you hit it and are caught, you are out.

Alec Stewart was a fine example to all cricketers, he walked when he knew he was out, and as I recall (unlike Hussain twice in Sri Lanka in the subsequent series), walked when England were chasing down the runs in the dark in Pakistan to win the series 1-0. Hussain stood his ground twice in one innings, England narrowly scraped home in the Test and series and Hussain cheated.

Perhaps a good way of looking at it is from the other side's perspective, would you like it if someone did it to you? Or as my mum brought us up with a plethora of sayings, one is "do unto others as you would want done unto yourself".

 

[Owzat]

Broad as come out and said he has "no regrets", I think that just confirms what ap rat he is. Whether or not he defends his right to stand his ground, surely he must have some regret - at least for the feelings of his fellow HUMAN BEINGS and what his actions caused if not the action itself

BBC Sport - Ashes 2013-14: Stuart Broad has no regrets at not walking

He also misses a vital point, "walkers" as he puts it don't wait to be given not out and therein lies the point. By the laws he was out, justifications like "we are not playing for a cheese sandwich" do him any favours and I side with boof on him being a cheat, whether retracted or not.

Sounds all too much like he's trying to make himself into a martyr and the aussies (ironically) out to be the crims Maybe when he's in his 50s or 60s he'll see it differently, but probably not. Some people will never get the fact that cricket was supposed to be one of the better sports and played in the right spirit, sadly that disappeared years ago and justified cheating took over - if not "the umpire has to give me out" then pointing to someone else doing it so that makes it "ok".

Like saying the windies weren't afraid to rough tailenders up a bit, or in 1990 waste time and cheat, or the aussies who took on the bad guy role as non-walkers and with sledging, and now England think they're entitled as one of, if not the, top side to follow suit. It's a shame they can't see those aren't positive memories of the aussies and windies, far from it. We recognise they played excellent cricket, but felt they had to do extra bits against the spirit to win when they weren't by virtue of being the better side - a blot on their copy books

 

[Umair7]

Broad didn't walk, why make a fuss about it even Haddin didn't but the thing was they had a review left and they used it

 

[playkid12]

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!

Spirit of Cricket and cheating are different. Broad didn't play with the Spirit of Cricket, but he's not a cheater. If you call the player a cheater instead of pointing the finger at the umpire, you're blaming the wrong person.