Gilchrist, walking, appealing and sportsmanship

[Rollypolly1]

I can only imagine in telling me to play the game, you are insinuating that I don't really know a lot about it.

Correct.

Not something I'm going to take seriously from someone who thinks Gilchrist is as dishonest as they come.

And i care because ?!?

Therefore, it is often common not to see whether the ball nicks the bat or pad, because you are focused on the ball and only notice a deviation

True when the bat is in FRONT of the pads. When the bat is hidden BEHIND the pads, its pretty flipping hard to miss it having a straight line-of-sight from just a couple of feet away. especially with your 'perfect eyesight'.

 

[Ikki]

Dear God, Gilly said it, so it must be true!
You really believe everything everyone says to the media, eh ?

Haha, no, I'll believe you, of course.

Again i say, if a wicketkeeper, standing two feet from the batsman, claims that he was unsure about bat hidden behind pad, then he is either a total liar or blind as a bat. Take your pick,for there is no other logical conclusion left.

Or that he wasn't sure and made an appeal, as did most the surrounding fielders and the bowler too.

It is not possible to have missed the FACT that the batsman was hiding his bat behind the pad when you are standing directly behind him.

It was not so far behind the pad, nor was the ball so away from the pads to suggest that it was clearly visible.

no i did not infer that players know whether it is out or not every single time.Just that sometimes, some players (particularly from a certain nation) appeal even when they KNOW it is not out.

Ahh. Like the Indians which SS showed you. Or all the other players that also appealed with Gilchrist.

Why again, is this only about him? In fact, the slips would have had a better view.

Again i say,lay off the personal insults...or did your parents not teach you that ?

Oh, I didn't know "my parents not teaching me..." wasn't an insult.

One that i care to point out right now. Career's worth of honesty is nothing but media nonsense.

One piss poor example generalising a player's character is nothing but a piss poor argument by you.

 

[ozone]

True when the bat is in FRONT of the pads. When the bat is hidden BEHIND the pads, its pretty flipping hard to miss it having a straight line-of-sight from just a couple of feet away. especially with your 'perfect eyesight'.

NO, NO, NO. I'm going to repeat myself in simple terms (especially for you).

Dravid = Good Technical Batsman
Good Technical Batsman = Bat and Pad close together
Bat and Pad Close together = Hard to differentiate between the two

And as for it being hard to miss, no its not. Try keeping to an average spinner when a good batsman is playing and see if you can tell the difference

 

[Rollypolly1]

Why again, is this only about him? In fact, the slips would have had a better view.

False. You need to understand the concept of 'line of sight'.

Oh, I didn't know "my parents not teaching me..." wasn't an insult.

it was a legitimate question, since these things are taught at home...atleast they are in civilized countries.
Besides, you started the personal abuse-fest.

One piss poor example generalising a player's character is nothing but a piss poor argument by you.

nope. It takes one rape to get yourself declared a rapist, it takes one perjury to get yourself declared an embezzler and just as so, it takes one act of blatant cheating to get yourself declared as a cheat. Perfectly consistent, mate.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Try keeping to an average spinner when a good batsman is playing and see if you can tell the difference

if you cannot tell the difference between 'bat close to pads' and 'bat behind pads', maybe you shouldn't be a keeper in the first place.

 

[ozone]

if you cannot tell the difference between 'bat close to pads' and 'bat behind pads', maybe you shouldn't be a keeper in the first place.

Well, I'm not although that probably doesn't help my case (definately expecting personal attack here).

Its kinda obvious but you seem to be missing it so I'll try and make it nice and clear. The bat can be close to the pads and be behind the pads.

 

[Rollypolly1]

The bat can be close to the pads and be behind the pads.

if the bat is behind the pad, it is very easy to see that the bat is behind the pad when you are standing BEHIND the person and just a couple of feet away.

 

[Bracken]

I am voicing my opinion and unlike some, i've backed up my opinion with reason!

Someone's giving themselves a smidge too much credit...

 

[ozone]

if the bat is behind the pad, it is very easy to see that the bat is behind the pad when you are standing BEHIND the person and just a couple of feet away.

This is going nowhere. You have blatantly never kept wicket (apart from maybe at under 10's level) and have no idea about it. If you had read my previous posts, you would know that it doesn't appear clear for keepers.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Someone's giving themselves a smidge too much credit...

And here comes the Hyena pack....

 

[Rollypolly1]

You have blatantly never kept wicket (apart from maybe at under 10's level) and have no idea about it.

Pfffft. yes, God, you are correct.

If you think a wicketkeeper cannot SEE your bat firmly behind your front foot, i have nothing more to say,except that get your eyes checked.

 

[ozone]

And here comes the Hyena pack....

You're bringing it on yourself mate. You can't really expect to make ridiculus statements and not be called on them.

 

[ozone]

Pfffft. yes, God, you are correct.

If you think a wicketkeeper cannot SEE your bat firmly behind your front foot, i have nothing more to say,except that get your eyes checked.

Thanks, I've been waiting for you to say that for ages, thats made my day.

 

[Ikki]

False. You need to understand the concept of 'line of sight'.

What? They were perfectly positioned to see the ball. Even moreso than Gilchrist because the spin coming back into the batsman, and seeing the bat behind the pad, would clearly show the possibility of hit hitting the bat being very little to none. Whereas Gilchrist is impeded by the wickets, his helmet, trying to track the trajectory of a spinning ball and also keeping tabs on Dravid's swing - all from behind.

Imagine the same ball with a shaving of the face of the blade that did not make much movement in the air, how can Gilchrist tell that one either?

it was a legitimate question, since these things are taught at home...atleast they are in civilized countries.
Besides, you started the personal abuse-fest.

Alright, another legitimate question: are you an idiot? I tend to find people making poor arguments with little to no proof as people with questionable intelligence.

nope. It takes one rape to get yourself declared a rapist, it takes one perjury to get yourself declared an embezzler and just as so, it takes one act of blatant cheating to get yourself declared as a cheat. Perfectly consistent, mate.

Big problem here: Gilchrist is not and can not be proved to have saw it miss, know it missed and have appealed.

And comparing this to rapists... is that you C_C? The completely illogical argument, the extreme comparisons. Either C_C or his long lost brother.

 

[shortpitched713]

The bat can be behind the pad and at the same time the tiniest portion of the bat or the glove may be sticking out from behind the pad. Any deflection off of that part of the bat or glove would be adequate to make a caught out appeal. Gilly probably saw that the bat was behind the pad, but he could not have ascertained that no part of the bat or pad could have played a part in a deflection. Thus he asked the question, and the umpire screwed up big time. Isn't enough to declare him a brazen cheater for mine.

 

[ozone]

And comparing this to rapists... is that you C_C? The completely illogical argument, the extreme comparisons. Either C_C or his long lost brother.

I dunno who C_C is, but I was beginning to think that this person might not be all that new to CW as well.

 

[JBH001]

Agree. Shades of C_C too, I reckon (or eerily similiar).

 

[JBH001]

Ok, I put to you this: if every single player in the world uttered those words, would you believe them? If not, why not? could it be because in the past you have seen those players act in such a way (such as appeal for something obviously not out) so as to put some doubt in your mind as to integrity of a player and the credibility of their sportsmanship?

well that doubt in my mind was confirmed by Gilchrists' actions yesterday.

To back it up with an example:
if Kumble uttered those words, would you believe him? why not? is it because you've seen him appeal for some things that obviously seem not out? (e.g the Hogg LBW shout that many have cited). and fair enough too.

Well, then, in the same vein, after seeing Gilchrists' actions yesterday, it makes it very difficult to believe his words either.

I don't either. The rules are there for a reason. But at the same time, people shouldn't be lauding someone like Gilchrist for showing great sportsmanship either, if he acts in this manner.

You misunderstand me. I put that quote up to show that I think Gilly is full of manure.

He was perfectly aware that he was appealing for something that was clearly not out.

I have more or less already said my piece on this issue, but I think Slow Love said it best where Adam Gilchrist is concerned "I do think that out of all this kerfuffle over the Aussies' behaviour, I think Gilchrist will come out of this having lost the most, in terms of goodwill." And rightly so too, its time that false little tin halo slipped a bit.

 

[Richard]

What exactly are you advocating there, Rich? That players stand in open defiance of umpires' decisions? Because a mechanism for reporting bad decisions already exists. Personally I think it's to Dravid's great credit that he took such a smeller on the chin without resorting to childish histrionics & I've no doubt the decision will be mentioned in the report on the umpires' performances.

No, no, heavens no that'll do no-one any good. Just that they can then talk about the decision, saying "yes, it was a wrong decision and I shouldn't have been out, and something should be done about this" and no-one can give them the "what goes around comes around" that applies to non-walkers.

It's always to the credit of a player who takes a bad decision well at the time it happens.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Imagine the same ball with a shaving of the face of the blade that did not make much movement in the air, how can Gilchrist tell that one either?

Complete nonsense. If you are standing just two feet behind the batsman,with a straight line of sight, you CANNOT miss the fact that the bat is squarely behind the front foot and no way can the ball touch the bat. Gillchrist is a cheat for appealing for something as obvious as that.

Alright, another legitimate question: are you an idiot? I tend to find people making poor arguments with little to no proof as people with questionable intelligence.

Again, whats with the personal abuse ? Typical aussie attitude when losing an argument eh ?

And comparing this to rapists... is that you C_C? The completely illogical argument, the extreme comparisons. Either C_C or his long lost brother.

Why don't you take your boldfaced lies somewhere else, mate ?
Either that, or learn to comprehend English better.
I made the rapist comment when someone was trying to 'educate' me on the legal system and i made the comment in relation to 'but then again,in your country, rapists are let go scot free when its a person of color raped'. Nowhere did i equate this with rape and that is your disingeneous lying self lying exposed yet again.