Ball tampering, does every team do it?

[Sanz]

CW in "rush to defend Tendulkar" shocker!

What he did was illegal, period.

 

[dikinee]

But if you're given not out caught behind by the umpire, but you know you've hit it, you shouldn't take what you're given and get on with it?

Do you actually play cricket? If you walk the umpire isnt going to call you back and say "Dont go, I dont think you were out."
Once you walk the ump doesnt have to make any decision whatsoever.

The drop of the head and the repeated beating of the ground with your bat usually gives it away in any case.

 

[99*]

The drop of the head and the repeated beating of the ground with your bat usually gives it away in any case.

Na, it's the swing of the head to see if they've dropped it. Never seen a batsman that misses the ball watch it go to the keeper. They always follow where the ball should've gone had they hit it.

 

[zaremba]

True if he was trying to stop a rolling ball, there is a 50 50 chance he might get it right........

Thank you.

(In fact the chances are even less because a lot of the ball's surface area is made up of the seam, which a fielder would never want to damage, but hey).

looked like to me as he stepped on an already stopped ball.

That's because you obviously didn't see it happening, and are just looking at a still photo. He stopped the rolling ball with his foot. Which is what I saw when I saw the footage on TV and which is what all the press reports also say. And the match officials decided that he had no case to answer.

Now, if you or anyone finds any footage of him stamping on a stationary ball, I will happily admit that what he was doing was distinctly suspect.

 

[zaremba]

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

You're really straining things now.

1. Walking isn't a "rule".

2. Describing walking as "blatantly disrespecting the official's decision" is absolutely ridiculous. (Apart from the million-and-one other reasons, the batsman's entitlement to walk is recognised by the Laws).

3. In other sports you might well admit to having made an infringement that the officials haven't seen. In snooker (and I imagine pool) players often own up for accidentally touching a ball, or a double-hit. In football if you're dribbling the ball down the touchline you might well admit that it went out, and stop playing; or you might admit that you were the last player to touch the ball so it becomes a corner to the other side. In tennis (particularly before Hawkeye) players would sometimes call errors made in their favour by the officials and concede the point. In golf you're expected to call your own mistakes. It's generally recognised as a pretty sporting thing to do.

 

[ret]

Harsha Bhogle: Is it time to revisit the ball-tampering laws? | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

I laughed when I read the not walking was compared to ball tempering. There are so many occasions where a batsmen is not out but is giving out. For example a bad LBW decision, a bad caught behind, etc. If you are talking about walking then you shouldn't be appealing when you think the batsman is not out. Not walking is accepted because the decision rests with umpire whether the batsman or bowler is right. And over a course of time, it is said things even out!

In short: Not walking can be compared to false appealing (including claiming bumps). Ball tempering is a different issue.

Coming back to ball tempering, the laws are not clearly defined and are the same (from what I understand) whether the offense is minor, technical or a major one. It is understood that when we are talking about ball tempering, we are talking about major ones. Before talking about ball tempering (including legalizing it), one needs to first differentiate the major ones

 

[dikinee]

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

No, the stupidest thing in cricket is pretenders dribbling on about things they know nothing about. The thing all of you non-playing posters have to understand is when you walk, as I always do, the umpire doesnt make a decision. The batsman doesnt stand there for ten minutes and then decide to walk off. You hit the ball and it is caught and you walk off before any opinion has been offered by the umpire so how can that be disrespecting an official decision?

 

[Son Of Coco]

In football if you're dribbling the ball down the touchline you might well admit that it went out, and stop playing; or you might admit that you were the last player to touch the ball so it becomes a corner to the other side..

I don't know what football you watch, but in my experience players are too busy pretending they were tripped and throwing their arms up to claim the throw when the ball obviously touched them last before going out to worry about doing anything that would constitute 'good sportsmanship'.

Have rarely seen a player admit it touched his hand or arm either and just stop in their tracks.

 

[zaremba]

I don't know what football you watch, but in my experience players are too busy pretending they were tripped and throwing their arms up to claim the throw when the ball obviously touched them last before going out to worry about doing anything that would constitute 'good sportsmanship'.

Have rarely seen a player admit it touched his hand or arm either and just stop in their tracks.

Yeah I wasn't referring to professional football. Which is exactly as you describe.

 

[Top_Cat]

No, the stupidest thing in cricket is pretenders dribbling on about things they know nothing about. The thing all of you non-playing posters have to understand is when you walk, as I always do, the umpire doesnt make a decision. The batsman doesnt stand there for ten minutes and then decide to walk off. You hit the ball and it is caught and you walk off before any opinion has been offered by the umpire so how can that be disrespecting an official decision?

Ass. U. Me., etc.

 

[fredfertang]

2. Describing walking as "blatantly disrespecting the official's decision" is absolutely ridiculous. (Apart from the million-and-one other reasons, the batsman's entitlement to walk is recognised by the Laws).

How about this example then Mr Z

The home side are batting in a Test match. The visitors appeal for a bat pad catch against Batsman A who is given not out by the umpire - the visitors are extremely unhappy and pointedly refuse to acknowledge or applaud Batsman A when he later goes past three figures. To make their point even more clear when Batsman B later gets his fifty the visitors go overboard in making a fuss of him.

Come the visitors innings Batsman C is well set. He is known throughout the game as a walker. He snicks one to the keeper and there is a loud appeal. Remembering earlier events he stays put and is given not out by the same umpire. The decision given in his favour he can't however go through with it and walks back to the pavilion

Media storm follows

Two questions then

More importantly what are the rights and wrongs of the scenario?

Less importantly who are A, B and C - usual trivia rules apply

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Do you actually play cricket? If you walk the umpire isnt going to call you back and say "Dont go, I dont think you were out."
Once you walk the ump doesnt have to make any decision whatsoever.

The drop of the head and the repeated beating of the ground with your bat usually gives it away in any case.

Yes, I've played quite a lot of cricket. And I understand the rules, and I understand what the umpire is there to do, and I play to the whistle, as the rules fully allow. It's not even like 'walking' is overlooked by the rules. It's fully accounted for and not discouraged in any way. If anything the rules tend to lean toward the authority of the umpire.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Come the visitors innings Batsman C is well set. He is known throughout the game as a walker. He snicks one to the keeper and there is a loud appeal. Remembering earlier events he stays put and is given not out by the same umpire. The decision given in his favour he can't however go through with it and walks back to the pavilion

And this is exactly why players should not walk before the decision. Because on the odd occasion that they may not walk, knowing they're out, the umpire may well be influenced to give 'em not out. And that's not poor umpiring, that's human doubt. And if there's doubt, it's not out.

 

[dikinee]

How about this example then Mr Z

The home side are batting in a Test match. The visitors appeal for a bat pad catch against Batsman A who is given not out by the umpire - the visitors are extremely unhappy and pointedly refuse to acknowledge or applaud Batsman A when he later goes past three figures. To make their point even more clear when Batsman B later gets his fifty the visitors go overboard in making a fuss of him.

Come the visitors innings Batsman C is well set. He is known throughout the game as a walker. He snicks one to the keeper and there is a loud appeal. Remembering earlier events he stays put and is given not out by the same umpire. The decision given in his favour he can't however go through with it and walks back to the pavilion

Media storm follows

Two questions then

More importantly what are the rights and wrongs of the scenario?

Less importantly who are A, B and C - usual trivia rules apply

I want some of the drugs that you`ve got

 

[fredfertang]

I want some of the drugs that you`ve got

Sadly discussions about narcotics lead, I believe, to bans, else I'd be happy to make some available to you

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ramiz Raja's opinion on the subject:

[But] it is also time to remind ourselves that this madness stems from a certain mindset and a background. Afridi comes from an era, a cricketing culture, where ball-tampering is considered a normal cricket activity, the done thing on flat Pakistani pitches - an art form and not a sin. It's been a part of the Pakistan team's standard operating procedure.

All teams have one. The Aussies have been brought up on sledging, and while the rest may see it as uncouth, offensive behaviour that is against the principles of this game, it is appreciated by them as a legitimate weapon to be used against oppositions. England moan when they make a tour of the subcontinent, and maybe this is part of their operating procedure.

Ramiz Raja: Don't crucify Afridi

 

[Sir Alex]

Loved the last line " Afridi was forced to play god"..

Dire article.

 

[jeevan]

Ironic that it's Pakistan that massively raised the stakes with Ovalgate. What could've been put forth as a dubious umpiring decision was escalated into a black-and-white matter of national honor and people's entire careers.

In the process, ball tampering was firmly established as a cheating mechanism and it's impossible to now think of it otherwise.

IIRC, Rameez Raja was a part of the self-righteous brigade then, and it is quite disingenuous of him, if not downright hypocritical, to take this particular stand now.

 

[SJS]

Ramiz Raja's opinion on the subject:

[But] it is also time to remind ourselves that this madness stems from a certain mindset and a background. Afridi comes from an era, a cricketing culture, where ball-tampering is considered a normal cricket activity, the done thing on flat Pakistani pitches - an art form and not a sin. It's been a part of the Pakistan team's standard operating procedure.

All teams have one. The Aussies have been brought up on sledging, and while the rest may see it as uncouth, offensive behaviour that is against the principles of this game, it is appreciated by them as a legitimate weapon to be used against oppositions. England moan when they make a tour of the subcontinent, and maybe this is part of their operating procedure.

Ramiz Raja: Don't crucify Afridi

I have quite a few favourite bits in what is the greatest piece of humourous cricket writing one has come acros in decades.

Calling ball-tampering unlawful and an offence is regrettable. If ball-tampering is being openly admitted by the players, and given that it is difficult to assign reasons for why reverse swing happens (since even tampering is often ineffective in generating reverse swing), shouldn't the authorities stop looking at the practice with suspicion and instead look to bring it into the cricket syllabus so that we can all move on?

Offspinners were forced to revolt against the unjust system, and they created the doosra, which has managed to bring a semblance of balance to a skewed relationship and also reinvented a dying art. Some would say bowling the doosra is tantamount to chucking; others view it as a justified mutiny against the lop-sided rules bowlers operate under.​

Comparing dishionesty with sledging, comparing the masterly invention of the doosra with ball tampering as being a "revolt against the unjust system", justifying ball tampering to obtain reverse swing by sugesting that "even a well-looked-after ball can behave against its masters' wishes and not bend" because "the condition of the ball is only one aspect of it" etc etc.

Clearly reasoning and logic are Mr Rameez raja's strongest suits.

 

[Furball]

How about this example then Mr Z

The home side are batting in a Test match. The visitors appeal for a bat pad catch against Batsman A who is given not out by the umpire - the visitors are extremely unhappy and pointedly refuse to acknowledge or applaud Batsman A when he later goes past three figures. To make their point even more clear when Batsman B later gets his fifty the visitors go overboard in making a fuss of him.

Come the visitors innings Batsman C is well set. He is known throughout the game as a walker. He snicks one to the keeper and there is a loud appeal. Remembering earlier events he stays put and is given not out by the same umpire. The decision given in his favour he can't however go through with it and walks back to the pavilion

Media storm follows

Two questions then

More importantly what are the rights and wrongs of the scenario?

Less importantly who are A, B and C - usual trivia rules apply

The 2 problems I've got with walking:

What does a batsman who knows he's middled the ball onto his pads do when he's wrongly given out LBW? He's just got to accept the umpire's made a mistake and leave the field. Wrong decisions even themselves out, so I've no problem with batsmen getting on with the game when an incorrect decision is made in their favour.

Batsmen who are known walkers IMO can influence an umpiring decision. Gilchrist was a known walker, in a tight situation if I was umpiring and there was an appeal for a caught behind and Gilchrist remained in his ground that would insert enough doubt in my mind to give it not out.

Batsmen and fielders should "play to the whistle."