The Ugly Australians

[James219]

But you were saying that walking was not respecting the umpires decision. Under the laws of the game, an umpire can only give a batsman out after an appeal from the fielding side. This applies to all wickets, including being bowled.

So technically, if a batsman is playing by the letter of the law, when he is bowled, he should wait for the fielding side to appeal, at which point the umpire gives him out.

I know you're completely right he is entitled to stand his ground until the umpire rasies his finger. But you already know what the verdict will be so not much point really.

And MUFC1987 is right, that's kind of selective walking where you make people feel you are honest, so if you appeal for a catch or stand your ground people will think you're telling the truth. We obviously can't judge how Adam Gilchrist goes about it, but it is best to let the umpire make the decision, hence avoiding these kind of misunderstandings and assumptions that will end up creating unfair viewpoints of the game.

 

[andrew_nixon]

I know you're completely right he is entitled to stand his ground until the umpire rasies his finger. But you already know what the verdict will be so not much point really.

Agreed. But a while ago you were saying that walking is against the spirit of the game. So surely, you would expect a batsman to stand his ground until given out under ALL circumstances?

 

[James219]

You obviously found the loophole. I wouldn't expect him to stand his ground in that situation, (he'd then have to cop alot) but as I said when you're bowled it's self evident and it's a law that is not payed alot of attention to by umpires, players or the public.

 

[barmyarmy]

That applies to the bowlers too. Get on with the game. As Geoff Boycott once said, if Hawkeye was used in matches, teams would be getting all out for under a 100. How much would you like to watch cricket then?

It might help in the India/Pakistan series...

 

[sohum]

Yeah, then we'd have about 3 centuries a match.

 

[Adarsh]

That applies to the bowlers too. Get on with the game. As Geoff Boycott once said, if Hawkeye was used in matches, teams would be getting all out for under a 100. How much would you like to watch cricket then?

Then you should change the laws!! Assuming you agree that Hawkeye is accurate enough (99%) then basically you are saying that although the ball is going to hit the stumps, he shouldn't be out (if it clips the top of off stump for example).

To combat this 'problem', I suggest a new idea. Change the rules so that LBW can only be given if the ball hits ANY part of the middle stump ONLY. And use Hawkeye to judge that. Then, you won't see frequent LBWs. I know this is a drastic change of the LBW system, which is unlikely to be applied, what do you think of this?

 

[Briggsey]

To combat this 'problem', I suggest a new idea. Change the rules so that LBW can only be given if the ball hits ANY part of the middle stump ONLY. And use Hawkeye to judge that. Then, you won't see frequent LBWs. I know this is a drastic change of the LBW system, which is unlikely to be applied, what do you think of this?

LBWs are part and parcel of the game, it would be a negative move to change the rules and in my opinion is completely out of the question. Hawkeye is a revolutionary piece of technology but I cant see it being introduced any time soon to make the umpires lifes easier as with all technology it has its flaws and the human eye sees things which hawkeye cannot and vice versa.

We dont want a game where technology is relied upon for everything, sure it would help to make things fair, but this is what makes the game so thrilling for us all. Imagine the extacy of that Edgbaston test, England fans going wild after Jones takes that catch only for an 'electronic' umpire to give it not out and Australia go on to win. Is that what we want? I as a cricket fan would much rather have my international team loose in a thriller like that than to an 'electronic' umpire any day.

 

[sohum]

I think its stupid. People will spend more time observing the technology rather than watching the game. Discussions will not be made about how good a match was, but if the ball was actually gonna hit middle stump.

 

[aussie1st]

We dont want a game where technology is relied upon for everything, sure it would help to make things fair, but this is what makes the game so thrilling for us all. Imagine the extacy of that Edgbaston test, England fans going wild after Jones takes that catch only for an 'electronic' umpire to give it not out and Australia go on to win. Is that what we want? I as a cricket fan would much rather have my international team loose in a thriller like that than to an 'electronic' umpire any day.

Lol I wouldn't mind it. If it means winning the Ashes I'll take the 'electronic' umpire making the right call. But you are right in that the thrill would have been lost for you English fans if they sent up that call and it was out.

 

[beefy_botham]

Cricket is a game made by humans for humans. No technology pls unless you want a slow boring game. Hawkeye is too slow for decision making and this was proven during the 'super' series.

PS. Isn't a quick game a good game?? (arguable point)

 

[andrew_nixon]

Hawkeye is too slow for decision making and this was proven during the 'super' series.

Hawkeye wasn't used during the super series.

Hawkeye takes less than a second to calculate wether the ball would have hit the stumps or not. What takes so long is the rendering of the computer graphics to display on TV.

 

[James219]

All that was used in the Super Series were motion replays and the blue strikezone technology. I don't even agree with the use of hawkeye/snickometer on television, despite it being great technology, it gives both the public and media a firmer basis in which to launch attacks upon Umpire's ability to make correct decisions and batsmen being terrible sports because of not 'walking', hence the panic of the ICC and the introduction of it into the actual game.

 

[IloveGilly]

Well, if we didn't have that technology then it makes you wonder if it was the right/wrong decision.

 

[tsyrmas]

All that was used in the Super Series were motion replays and the blue strikezone technology. I don't even agree with the use of hawkeye/snickometer on television, despite it being great technology, it gives both the public and media a firmer basis in which to launch attacks upon Umpire's ability to make correct decisions and batsmen being terrible sports because of not 'walking', hence the panic of the ICC and the introduction of it into the actual game.

but the umpires should not make the mistake anyway.

 

[James219]

They don't make too many mistakes, but I'm saying for example if the ball is just pitching within the line of the stumps and it appears outside leg from the naked eye, and is just clipping legstump according to hawkeye then the umpires get alot of criticism for a decision that would have been given little attention without the technology.

And IloveGillly, as was mentioned before, cricket is a human game and we shouldn't have technology dictating the pin point decision, it's ok for people to wonder what the verdict could have been because atleast we're thinking, and not a machine.