Ball tampering, does every team do it?

[zaremba]

Sorry, I didn't mean to presume any generalisations. I just wanted some clarification on this bit:

Yep. But I'm interested in the issue it raises of whether some generalisations can fairly be made. Which is a difficult subject. As a generalisation, I do think that the Aussies (despite in some respects having a ridiculously bad record of reprehensible behaviour of various forms) usually steer clear of the sneaky stuff. Greg and Trevor Chappell excepted, obviously.

 

[dikinee]

So you're saying Australians are less prone to cheating?

I wouldnt say we Australians are less likely to cheat than any other nationality, I am sure there are other countries who share our views on this subject. What I can say, without fear of contradiction, is that we grow up in a culture that teaches us to play to win but not at the cost of your self respect. Anyone who tries to play with the attitude that they are better than the rest of us and therefore dont have to play by the rules is more likely to cop a punch in the head off his own team mates than any official reprimand. If you have to cheat to win it isnt really winning, is it? Play hard but play withim the rules.

 

[Richard]

Yep. But I'm interested in the issue it raises of whether some generalisations can fairly be made. Which is a difficult subject. As a generalisation, I do think that the Aussies (despite in some respects having a ridiculously bad record of reprehensible behaviour of various forms) usually steer clear of the sneaky stuff. Greg and Trevor Chappell excepted, obviously.

Personally I think Australians have a tendency to get a bit high-and-mighty over certain affairs, and ball-tampering is one of the worst.

Many other countries, including us over here, have similar tendencies over various cricketing offences. The high-horse-ism by some Englishmen over match-fixing was ridiculous.

 

[Richard]

I wouldnt say we Australians are less likely to cheat than any other nationality, I am sure there are other countries who share our views on this subject. What I can say, without fear of contradiction, is that we grow up in a culture that teaches us to play to win but not at the cost of your self respect. Anyone who tries to play with the attitude that they are better than the rest of us and therefore dont have to play by the rules is more likely to cop a punch in the head off his own team mates than any official reprimand. If you have to cheat to win it isnt really winning, is it? Play hard but play withim the rules.

Which rather flies in the face of the "never walk" culture that's been prevalent in Australia for about as long as anyone can remember. And the way that many people, not just Australians, try to paint non-walking as not cheating.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It's technically not cheating.

 

[Streetwise]

Which rather flies in the face of the "never walk" culture that's been prevalent in Australia for about as long as anyone can remember. And the way that many people, not just Australians, try to paint non-walking as not cheating.

"Not walking" is within the rules and not cheating, that fits in with what was said.

 

[Richard]

Morally speaking, I see no difference between trying to get away with something that the rules say is out and patently flouting the rules.

There is no rule stipulating batsmen must walk only because there is no possible way of enforcing any such rule.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Morally speaking, I see no difference between trying to get away with something that the rules say is out and patently flouting the rules.

There is no rule stipulating batsmen must walk only because there is no possible way of enforcing any such rule.

But the Law addresses walking, and doesn't even imply that not walking is wrong.

To be dismissed, he must be out under some Law and his innings must be terminated
- either of his own free will
- or by an umpire giving him out.

He is dismissed if,
- knowing that he is out, he simply walks from the wicket and leaves the field of play. This is known as ‘walking’.
- or after an appeal by the fielding side, the umpire gives him out by raising an index
finger.

If, however, he does not ‘walk’ and there is no appeal (extremely rare) or there is an appeal but the umpire gives him Not out (perhaps because the touch on the bat was too fine for him to discern) the striker is not dismissed, in spite of actually being out, and his innings will continue.

The Laws of cricket make not walking perfectly legitimate. As much as you may disagree with it on a moral level, the fact is that the sport recognizes it as fair play.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Further:

When a batsman is dismissed because he is out and walks, his personal innings is terminated for the remainder of that innings of his side.

If, however, a batsman walks when in fact he is not out, he is to be called back. Conditions for this are he must not be out under any of the Laws he must not have been given out.

The decision is, importantly, that of the umpire.

 

[Julian87]

Sorry, I didn't mean to presume any generalisations. I just wanted some clarification on this bit:

That bit means exactly what is written. All sport I have played in Australia, especially as the levels get higher, is pretty much clear of any sort of blatant cheating. As I said, any 'cheating' that was seen was harshly criticised no matter which team they're on./

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That bit means exactly what is written. All sport I have played in Australia, especially as the levels get higher, is pretty much clear of any sort of blatant cheating. As I said, any 'cheating' that was seen was harshly criticised no matter which team they're on./

But you must admit that the apparent tone of the posts suggest that Australians don't seem to stoop to cheating, but certain foreigners may well do so. Whether or not you meant it that way, that's how it reads. I mean, you even went to lengths to stress that the one guy you've seen do it wasn't Australian.

 

[Julian87]

Morally speaking, I see no difference between trying to get away with something that the rules say is out and patently flouting the rules.

There is no rule stipulating batsmen must walk only because there is no possible way of enforcing any such rule.

The fact that you pay the umpire to make the decision in conjunction with the fact that you get given out when you're not just as often makes walking a pretty stupid thing to do IMO.

 

[Julian87]

But you must admit that the apparent tone of the posts suggest that Australians don't seem to stoop to cheating, but certain foreigners may well do so. Whether or not you meant it that way, that's how it reads. I mean, you even went to lengths to stress that the one guy you've seen do it wasn't Australian.

I said that the only people I've played with who've used such tactics were from the sub-continent. This is a fact.

You're hard pressed trying to make any ball swing in Australia, I think we're too worried about shining the thing to start thinking about blatantly cheating and tampering with the ball.


edit: have to add that this is a generalisation on the whole, I obviously can't speak for every Australian team with any accuracy whatsoever. Just giving my response to the thread through cricket I have seen in Australia and NZ where very, very few teams tamper with the ball.

 

[Richard]

The fact that you pay the umpire to make the decision in conjunction with the fact that you get given out when you're not just as often makes walking a pretty stupid thing to do IMO.

You also get dropped hundreds of times, which pretty well invariably outnumber by quite a bit the times you get bad "out" decisions. If batsmen walk when they're out, it reduces the number of times an incorrect Umpiring decision will be made because it eliminates the chance of the bad n\o decision for catches. Thus it makes the game better - and as I'm sure most acknowledge, the good of the game is more important than the good of any individual batsman.

Batsmen who do not walk when they think they can get away with something which should be out (no batsman refuses to walk when he's obviously out) are batsmen who are trying to get what they have not earned, simple as.

 

[Richard]

But the Law addresses walking, and doesn't even imply that not walking is wrong.



The Laws of cricket make not walking perfectly legitimate. As much as you may disagree with it on a moral level, the fact is that the sport recognizes it as fair play.

I don't really think it "recognises it as fair play", it merely does not "recognise it as unfair play", which has been discussed previously in this thread in the guity\not-proven\not-guilty matter.

The post I made my reply to was one talking about winning by playing fair - ie, winning because you've earned victory. A batsman whose innings leads to victory having nicked one and not walked has engaged in every bit as unfair (though not illegal) play as a bowler who puts vaseline on the ball and swings his way to a spell which leads to victory. Simple as that, in my book.

I have no time for those who try to paint not walking as fair - it's something which cannot be outlawed, but it is not fair play.

 

[Julian87]

You also get dropped hundreds of times, which pretty well invariably outnumber by quite a bit the times you get bad "out" decisions. If batsmen walk when they're out, it reduces the number of times an incorrect Umpiring decision will be made because it eliminates the chance of the bad n\o decision for catches. Thus it makes the game better - and as I'm sure most acknowledge, the good of the game is more important than the good of any individual batsman.

Batsmen who do not walk when they think they can get away with something which should be out (no batsman refuses to walk when he's obviously out) are batsmen who are trying to get what they have not earned, simple as.

DWTA. So what if you get dropped, it is part of cricket. You don't pay the other team to drop catches. YET, YOU PAY THE UMPIRE TO MAKE A DECISION. If they say not out, you're not out. SIMPLE AS.

Your opinion is very, very Biritish, and very, very dated.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If batsmen walk when they're out, it reduces the number of times an incorrect Umpiring decision will be made because it eliminates the chance of the bad n\o decision for catches.

If batsmen walk, when Umpires aren't sure (doubt is 'not out' btw), then when that batsman does not walk, the Umpire will naturally start to think "He must not be out". And that is a very dangerous situation. Obviously, too, the only time when walking comes into the picture (almost invariably) is when there's some obvious doubt.

Say Gilchrist is known for walking when he knows he's out. In the World Cup final, he gets a fine edge, West Indies appeal, and he decides not to walk. The Umpire, being a human being, will doubt whether he's out, on some level.

The Umpire has to be allowed to make the decision. Walking is an avoidable influence on the Umpire.

 

[Julian87]

I don't really think it "recognises it as fair play", it merely does not "recognise it as unfair play", which has been discussed previously in this thread in the guity\not-proven\not-guilty matter.

The post I made my reply to was one talking about winning by playing fair - ie, winning because you've earned victory. A batsman whose innings leads to victory having nicked one and not walked has engaged in every bit as unfair (though not illegal) play as a bowler who puts vaseline on the ball and swings his way to a spell which leads to victory. Simple as that, in my book.

I have no time for those who try to paint not walking as fair - it's something which cannot be outlawed, but it is not fair play.

Walking, afaic, is the stupidest rule in cricket. How many other sports have a rule where players blatantly disrespect the official's decision?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Walking, afaic, is the stupidest rule in cricket. How many other sports have a rule where players blatantly disrespect the official's decision?

Well the rule actually states that the official has to agree with the decision to walk for the batsman to be out. However, I agree with you that it is very much undermining.

 

[Richard]

DWTA. So what if you get dropped, it is part of cricket. You don't pay the other team to drop catches. YET, YOU PAY THE UMPIRE TO MAKE A DECISION. If they say not out, you're not out. SIMPLE AS.

No, not simple as. The Umpire is paid (or, at most levels, not) to adjudicate when there is doubt, and to act as an authority figure. That does not mean that every out\not-out decision falls into the Umpire's hands - an Umpire is not expected to give a batsman out when he is bowled. The laws state what is out and what is not out, it is not the case that if an Umpire thinks a nick hasn't occurred a nick hasn't occurred.

Being dropped is a let-off for a batsman, and to say that a batsman deserves more let-offs from Umpiring errors because he gets the occasional saw-off from Umpiring errors makes no sense. This is also a completely separate issue from whether trying to get away with something that the laws say is out is fair play or not. Your contention was that batsmen should try to use the unfair play of attempting to get away with being out when they should be out to make-up for being hard done by - I pointed-out that something else more than makes-up for that. So your contention that trying to get away with dismissal is legitimate redress, as well as being irrelevant to whether it's fair or not, is wrong.

Your opinion is very, very Biritish, and very, very dated.

It dates from a time when there was less unfair play than there is now (certainly not when there was even close to no unfair play). The fact that British opinion was once that batsmen should always walk while it has never been that way in Australia means that in that respect the British once played the game in better fairness than Australians - end of story.