Who do you agree with?

[The Foxtrot]

Watching the start of the cricket today and slater and tony greig(?) was discussing about players walking. i am sure you are all familar with the issue, but what do you think?

i agree with slats, because you can't protest against the bad decisions and have to go, plus it is always nice to get some good luck.

 

[Poker Boy]

I think players shouldn't walk - as long as they don't scream like babies when they are given out when they are not out. And can I play devil's advocate: some players might walk when the edge is so blatatly obvious anyone can see it...but for the hard-to-detect edges they might stand their ground and rely on their reputation as walkers to be given the benefit of the doubt by the umpire. IMO that would be worse than not walking at all...

 

[Richard]

i agree with slats, because you can't protest against the bad decisions and have to go, plus it is always nice to get some good luck.

It is, but it doesn't mean anyone deserves it.

 

[Richard]

I think players shouldn't walk - as long as they don't scream like babies when they are given out when they are not out.

Seriously, though, how often does that happen?

Virtually never.

Non-walkers are hypocrites in many ways, but that is the worst of them.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I don't really mind either way. Kudos to those who walk if they know they're out, but I certainly don't have a problem with the vast majority of batsmen who make the umps earn their crust. They're not breaking any rules.

 

[Richard]

Obviously not but how on Earth do you enforce a rule "you must walk if you know you're out"?

 

[PY]

Obviously not but how on Earth do you enforce a rule "you must walk if you know you're out"?

It's not something that could be brought in to law obviously.

 

[Richard]

Exactly, so therefore "they're not breaking any rules" is hardly anything which can come to the defence of non-walk-ism.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I haven't voted because I'm comfortable with non-walkers, but respect those who do.

That said the depiction of Gilchrist as some latter day saint doesn't quite wash given some of the appeals he makes. Dalrymple barely got within a foot of McGrath's bouncer in the ODI @ Melbourne but Gilly went up like a thirteen-year-old's willy at the sight of a bra despite barely a flicker from Pidge. I've no issue with anyone appealing (within reason), but I'd like people to remember occasions like that next time they're tempted to buff his halo.

 

[Richard]

Gilly went up like a thirteen-year-old's willy at the sight of a bra

Oh, and on the subject of Gilchrist and unfair appeals - ever kept wicket? No? Seen rear-angle replays? If so, you'll know how easy it is to be unsighted compared to the bowler. Sometimes it can look for all money like there's a touch from behind when it can be obvious nothing of the sort from the front.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Oh, and on the subject of Gilchrist and unfair appeals - ever kept wicket? No? Seen rear-angle replays? If so, you'll know how easy it is to be unsighted compared to the bowler. Sometimes it can look for all money like there's a touch from behind when it can be obvious nothing of the sort from the front.

Never competitively, no. Have done it in knock abouts tho, obv.

I'm not disputing keepers have a different angle, but really this one looked clear as day. I suppose that he may've been appealing to negate the possibility of a wide too as the ball was on the high side.

 

[Richard]

My perception of Gilchrist is someone who would never cheat. That's garnered not just from his recent trend of walking but from listinging to him throughout the last 6 years. I think if he appealed for that, he thought Dalrymple had hit it. I haven't seen every single angle, but I've seen countless similar cases where different angles paint completely different pictures. Enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt unless there's really no doubt at all.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Obviously not but how on Earth do you enforce a rule "you must walk if you know you're out"?

What? I said kudos to those who walk if they know they're out. I never said that they must, and I certainly wouldn't advocate changing the rules to make it so.

 

[Richard]

And I didn't say you did...

I said that saying "they're not breaking any rules" is no defence of the non-walkers. Because it'd be completely impossible to bring in a rule pertaining to said circumstances.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I thought Gilchrist's appeal was pretty half-hearted to tell you the truth, Dale. I think that the proximity of the ball to being a wide had a fair bit to do with why he went up.

 

[andyc]

I don't really care TBH, as long as they're consistent.

 

[Richard]

There's being consistent and being consistent.

There's consistently not walking and consistently making a fuss when you get a bad decision.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I said that saying "they're not breaking any rules" is no defence of the non-walkers.

Whatever. If my sentence was lazy, it's because of my apathy about the topic at hand. It was silly of me to not take into account your tendency to leap on any point - no matter how insignificant - and use it to contradict someone. Well done again.

 

[Richard]

Yes, your sentence was lazy, and I hope you're now fully regretting that.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Yes, your sentence was lazy, and I hope you're now fully regretting that.

Nope.