Walking vs. Catching

[svijay]

I don't agree. If referred to the third umpire, the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. Hence, if it is too close to call, then the batsman should be not out. Which is why the umpire doesn't really do a mental coin toss. If the batsman is shown to be caught out clean--he's gone.

I agree that the batsman should get the benefit of doubt (the debate is on the extent of doubt given the fielder's word), but good decision-making is also about narrowing the extent of the grey area. I still think the mental toss happens often enough, even if it does not involve a fair coin and 50-50 odds. In my opinion, this is really a question about our own perception of the integrity of the current crop of players and how to deal with it best. One could get all misty about the good old days and take the high ground about the cricket we used to know and love, but the ground realities (weak pun intended) seem to suggest that one should not put more trust than what the players have earned.

But any evidence that will later show that a decision was wrong can, in principle, be applied before the decision is taken (for example, by the third umpire). What remains is the small bunch of instances where only the fielder knows what happened, and it is not clear to me that a glum view of human nature is our best guide in the matter.

 

[sohum]

But any evidence that will later show that a decision was wrong can, in principle, be applied before the decision is taken (for example, by the third umpire). What remains is the small bunch of instances where only the fielder knows what happened, and it is not clear to me that a glum view of human nature is our best guide in the matter.

If I understand your last sentence correctly, I have to say I don't agree. Cricket is really not about enjoying the game these days, or even producing a good spectacle. It has transformed, as with other popular, commercial sports, about winning. While it is nice to think that humans don't lie and are not inherently negative in their actions, I think that is a lofty view to hold. The fact is that when the pressure gets tougher and it's becoming harder to win, you may end up going against what would be your normal nature. I think it's important to rule fairly here--especially if there is technology available that can and has been used to make decisions.

Which is why I feel pre-series agreements are a little farcical and no one really stands to gain. The agreement was obviously made to keep within the spirit of the game, but one question is can all the teams really play within the right spirit when it comes down to crunch time? The technology is there and doesn't take all that time to load, and it should be used where it has been in the past (for example, by using the simple replay that has been used when neither of the umpires can decide whether a ball has been grounded).

 

[ivanvdm15]

Did they have an agreement on that ?

 

[sohum]

Did they have an agreement on that ?

I read an article that Ponting puts an agreement forth to every visiting captain to respect the fielder's judgment when it cames to close calls for catching. Kumble is one of the few that agreed. This thread was created to discuss if such agreements should even be made, in the first place, given that there is quite a bit of hypocrisy going on with the concept of "helping the umpire out".

 

[Cricket_60]

Walking should be up to the individual batsman. Dubious catches should be referred to the third umpire at all times and if the TV replays are inconclusive then the batsman should receive benefit of the doubt. Simple. None of this "trusting the players" crap (as half the time you don't know if you've taken it cleanly or not). Even if a fielder is adamant that they have taken it, its better to be completely sure then left with situations such as the Clarke, Ganguly dismissal.

 

[svijay]

The technology is there and doesn't take all that time to load, and it should be used where it has been in the past (for example, by using the simple replay that has been used when neither of the umpires can decide whether a ball has been grounded).

Sure, by all means use technology if it helps in a decision. But aren't there catches where even replays are useless because the fielder's body gets in the way of the camera? One could consistently give the benefit of doubt to the batsman in such cases, or one could go by an honour system. (The fielder is expected to claim it only if he knows for sure. If later evidence suggests otherwise, his reputation will take a hit, and why wasn't this later evidence available to the third umpire anyway? If no further evidence emerges, we will never know the truth, so we might as well take the fielder's word -- I see this is the point of disagreement, and I respect the dissenting opinion.)

You may think an honour system is naively idealistic, and my left brain agrees. But this is Test cricket we are talking about, and Test cricket has a soul that will outlive the clowns running the circus these days. Perhaps the real answer is less money, not more technology. Where wealth accumulates, men decay. (That's Ollie Goldsmith, not me.)

 

[SciD]

I read an article that Ponting puts an agreement forth to every visiting captain to respect the fielder's judgment when it cames to close calls for catching. Kumble is one of the few that agreed. This thread was created to discuss if such agreements should even be made, in the first place, given that there is quite a bit of hypocrisy going on with the concept of "helping the umpire out".

Even if they had agreement the damm umpire could have taken help of his pal in third umpire.

 

[prarara]

I believe batsmen should walk when they edged it and fielders shouldn't claim a catch if they hadn't caught it. It is just like cheating in a test. May get you good grades, but doesn't reflect your ability and leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of everyone involved. Why do it?

I feel there is no problem with agreements, but if a fielder or batsmen breaks it then both teams will feel terrible about it. One would feel they were robbed, the other that the first is accusing them of lying. So it is probably in the best intrest of the series that such agreements aren't made if they can't be kept.

I agree with those sentiments. Plus if an agreement is made prior to the test-in a game like cricket-that type of gentlemen's agreement should be honored. Still it takes a lot of integrity to walk.

 

[angryangy]

Is it the fielder's decision to give a batsman out?

It is the fielding team's job to supply evidence.

The concept of 'honest fielding' is an ad hoc measure because there is no technology being employed currently that actually helps the fielding side in regards to questionable catches. The jerky movement of the camera, the low frame-rate and low resolution always favour the batsman, which is unfair if there is a method of removing the doubt.

In that sense, although we'd like to see voluntary repercussions for breaching such an agreement, the necessity of the concept is the reason why such actions would be impractical.

In terms of technology, I wonder if it is possible to insert a sort of percussion sensor inside the ball, which produces a readout like snicko. However, I think there is still the question of camera quality.

As for walking, well, if batsman should be walking off before the finger is raised, then they should be under no pressure to leave the crease when they are given out erroneously. As it stands though, one of these things is dissent.

 

[sohum]

Hmm... interesting opinions.

Another problem I have with the fielder honor code policy is a defense for what end up being incorrect calls on the part of the fielder, which basically states that the fielder didn't know that they had dropped it.

It's a tough issue. While technology isn't providing all the means, I sadly don't trust international cricketers enough to make honest decisions.

 

[Dare]

Clive Lloyd told his batsman to always walk if they nicked the ball and the fielder caught it cleanly. i think it all comes down to what kind of a person the basman is, your not going to see that many soccer players saying somthing agaisnt their team.

 

[sohum]

Clive Lloyd told his batsman to always walk if they nicked the ball and the fielder caught it cleanly. i think it all comes down to what kind of a person the basman is, your not going to see that many soccer players saying somthing agaisnt their team.

Cricket is far different from soccer.

How about another topic of discussion:

Is there a place for walking in cricket?
Many have said that walking simply has no place in cricket because it has been ultra-competitive. I'm not sure about this one. It'd be difficult to moderate something like this, for sure. But it seems to me that if we are going to use the argument of the game becoming extremely competitive and hence putting all the impetus on the umpire to make the correct decision, we should also allow him to be helped out a bit (aka technology).

 

[A_Whitey]

Well, if I nick it and I know in my hearts of hearts I nicked it, then I will walk. I had one where I thought I edged it, stayed at the crease and was given not out. The wk asked me if I nicked it, he clearly thought I did but I had to say that I honestly did not know. I think in club cricket walking has its place, as I often feel bad cheating someone out of a wicket as I don't like it happening to me. In international far too much hangs on it and walking is now the exception [Gilchrist] rather than the norm.

 

[aussie1st]

Just like communism the idea in theory is great but in practice it just doesn't work. If players want to walk so be it, good on them just don't expect it to give you honesty points with the umpire (well that should be the case anyway).
Taking the word of the catcher, well in this day and age it's become too hard to trust fielders, so let the umpire make the call thats what hes paid to do gets rid of fans blaming the player and leaves it on the umpires.

 

[sohum]

Just like communism the idea in theory is great but in practice it just doesn't work. If players want to walk so be it, good on them just don't expect it to give you honesty points with the umpire (well that should be the case anyway).
Taking the word of the catcher, well in this day and age it's become too hard to trust fielders, so let the umpire make the call thats what hes paid to do gets rid of fans blaming the player and leaves it on the umpires.

That's precisely the conclusion I've come to.

Although when you're playing some backyard cricket with your friends and no umpire, what do you do? Is international cricket really so obsessed with winning that we have let go of all honesty?