Ball tampering, does every team do it?

[Richard]

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.

The number of times a batsman will be unsure of whether he's nicked something will be miniscule, and thus for a batsman who always walks when he nicks one this will not be a problem.

Selective walking is of course even more unfair play than non-walking.

But 100%-honest walking will reduce the number of incorrect decisions, not increase it.

 

[Julian87]

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.

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.

Wrong. You THINK it is unfair, I don't. End of story. Your opinion, and that is what the entirity of this post is, is no more important or correct than any others on this matter.

 

[Richard]

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

None, and there is no part of walking which is disrespecting the official's decision - unless of course you wait for the Umpire to give you n\o then walk, which is indeed deeply disrespectful.

But standard walking simply involves the batsman heading off before the official has made any decision.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The number of times a batsman will be unsure of whether he's nicked something will be miniscule, and thus for a batsman who always walks when he nicks one this will not be a problem.

Selective walking is of course even more unfair play than non-walking.

But 100%-honest walking will reduce the number of incorrect decisions, not increase it.

No batsman with any significant career will certainly walk every time he knows he's out. There's always the temptation to stand your ground. All batsmen are human.

 

[Richard]

Wrong. You THINK it is unfair, I don't. End of story. Your opinion, and that is what the entirity of this post is, is no more important or correct than any others on this matter.

Of course I think it is unfair, and of course you do not. There are also people who think that rubbing a bit of dust on the ball is not unfair; you do.

The point I've been making all along is that unfairness is in the eye of the beholder. And thus someone who has no truck with something that many people regard as unfair play really has no right to get on the high-horse about something they think is unfair play which others do not.

 

[Richard]

No batsman with any significant career will certainly walk every time he knows he's out. There's always the temptation to stand your ground. All batsmen are human.

Similarly no bowler with any significant career will avoid the temptation to bowl the odd Beamer if a batsman's really pissed them off. Not that they neccessarily always will, just that the thought will cross their mind.

As long as you don't allow unfair play to become a habit, you're not doing anything wrong in my book. A batsman who walks when he knows he's out on 249 occasions in his career and doesn't on 3 hasn't really committed much of a crime in my book - no more than someone who nicks a bag of 10p sweets from the local candy store.

 

[Julian87]

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.

Considering the umpire makes the final decision if he thinks a nick hasn't occured, that is final. In Australia we are taught to 'play to the whistle'. We are taught to accept the umpire's decision and respect the decision that they have made. This ranges across all sports.

Just on your theory about catches. It can be seen as having NOTHING to do with walking or not walking. Nothing at all. Your whole 'hang up' about dropped catches is entirely frustrating. They are just a part of the game, more so at lower levels as well. You don't draw pictures in the scorebook. Runs are runs, dropped catches, essentially, mean nothing but what was scored off that ball. My take on walking is that no-one should walk, there is nothing indicating that this is fair or unfair in the laws of cricket. You have just presumed that it is unfair because it is an English tradition to walk. If no-one walks it can hardly be labelled unfair, yes? And considering I think dropped catches have nothing to do with this; bad umpiring decisions that work against the batsman do even themselves up against when the batsman does not walk. That's an adage in plenty of places I've played cricket and for a reason AFAIC.

I'm not saying my word is law, or your word is wrong. But yours is simply not 'simple as' because so many people and cricketing communities disagree with it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Similarly no bowler with any significant career will avoid the temptation to bowl the odd Beamer if a batsman's really pissed them off. Not that they neccessarily always will, just that the thought will cross their mind.

We both know that's not the same thing, Richard.

1. Not walking is not wrong, according to the rules of the game. A beamer is.
2. Not walking is not physically harmful, which then involves moral issues outside those of sport. Beamers are physically harmful, etc.
3. It's a lot easier, for the average cricketer, to decide to not walk, than actually bowl an intentional beamer. One is linked closer to self-control than instinct, whereas the other is largely about instinct.

 

[Julian87]

It is the Football World Cup Final and England are drawing Germany 1-1. With 87 minutes gone Ballck chips it into the box and the ball brushes John Terry's fingers. Should he just stop, pick the ball up, put it on the penalty spot and say 'I actually handballed that, have a penalty'?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It is the Football World Cup Final and England are drawing Germany 1-1. With 87 minutes gone Ballck chips it into the box and the ball brushes John Terry's fingers. Should he just stop, pick the ball up, put it on the penalty spot and say 'I actually handballed that, have a penalty'?

Is a known cheater the best example there?

 

[Flem274*]

Batsmen play to the whistle (well umpire in this case), just like soccer players and rugby players and everyone else does.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Batsmen play to the whistle (well umpire in this case), just like soccer players and rugby players and everyone else does.

Richard to argue that they shouldn't in 5...4...3...

 

[Goughy]

A cricket ethics question for Richard (and anyone else), if the umpire calls a no-ball for overstepping and the non-striker doesnt think the bowler overstepped what should he do?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

To call it would be to undermine the authority of the Umpire.

 

[aussie]

He could complain on the spot if he wants quietly to the umpire, without making a big scene out of it. Especially lets say if its a close match & match-winning partnership is potentially being broken by the bowler overstepping.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

There is no way that the Umpire would, or should, change a noball decision on the basis of a non-striker's complaint. No umpire should ever have to presume the honesty of a player.

 

[Burgey]

A cricket ethics question for Richard (and anyone else), if the umpire calls a no-ball for overstepping and the non-striker doesnt think the bowler overstepped what should he do?

Bat on!

 

[Craig]

Should be left for the umpire to make the call, that is what he is paid (and well) for. I don't believe batsmen should walk, umpire makes the call, and if the opposition doesn't like it then they can review it.

(I'm also talking about Tests FTR).

 

[aussie]

There is no way that the Umpire would, or should, change a noball decision on the basis of a non-striker's complaint. No umpire should ever have to presume the honesty of a player.

Not saying the umpire would have to change his decision, as i said the non-striker can just have a light word without creating a scene. But in most cases a batsman (the non-striker) in such a scenario would not do anything i would think, since he may have at the back of his mind the TV replays & fans watching on TV would see it anyway.

I am a fan of front no-balls being given to the third umpire to call though, so as to give the on-field umpire the chance to focus 100% on just making decisions even with URDS around ATM.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What's a point of telling the umpire if it won't, and shouldn't, change anything?