Conflict within 'the spirit of the game'.

[NasserFan207]

So about a month ago, Ramdin was punished by the ICC for claiming a grounded catch, and going against 'the spirit of the game'.

Whats the difference between claiming a grounded catch, and not walking when you know 100% that you are out aka Stuart Broad?

Interested to see opinions

 

[Hoggy_Bear]

So about a month ago, Ramdin was punished by the ICC for claiming a grounded catch, and going against 'the spirit of the game'.

Whats the difference between claiming a grounded catch, and not walking when you know 100% that you are out aka Stuart Broad?

Interested to see opinions

Claiming a catch when you know it's bounced is cheating, and against the Laws, because you are actively trying to convince the umpire that something has happened when it hasn't. Not walking when you nick it is not actively trying to convince the umpire of anything, therefore it is not cheating and not against the Laws of the game.

 

[harsh.ag]

In the golden word of The Shins:
Close your eyes to corral a virtue,
Is this fooling anyone else?
Never worked so long and hard,
To cement a failure.


The above lines show why it is such a futile thing to differentiate between the two from an individual morality non-game theory point of view. But, from a systemic point of view, where the players engage in long-term game theory situations - As long as it follows the letter of the law, it is within the spirit of the game, because if we follow the spirit of the law then we leave the system open to manipulation (far too wide a range of manipulation) in the long term.

 

[NasserFan207]

Claiming a catch when you know it's bounced is cheating, and against the Laws, because you are actively trying to convince the umpire that something has happened when it hasn't. Not walking when you nick it is not actively trying to convince the umpire of anything, therefore it is not cheating and not against the Laws of the game.

Why should the fielder be responsible for informing the umpire, but not the batsmen?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Why should the fielder be responsible for informing the umpire, but not the batsmen?

Because the fielder has a direct role in the process of the appeal whereas the batsman has none.

 

[NasserFan207]

Right, but in essence its still the same thing. By standing your ground you are saying 'I didn't hit it', at least from a psychological point of view. You are appealing to the umpire not to give you out.

 

[Jarquis]

No you're not.

 

[NasserFan207]

Umpires change their decisions based on the reactions of batsmen all the time. Certainly at the level I play, and probably at test level too. Its just people don't talk about it much IMO

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, you don't get elected to the ICC Elite Panel if you go making decisions based on body language

 

[Furball]

It's down to umpires to give players out.

Asking players to walk is a crock of ****.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Players don't walk these days. Do the crims walk? Did Clarke at Adelaide when he hit the cover off it from KP?

Can't claim any moral high ground because he pissed away his reviews.

 

[theegyptian]

So about a month ago, Ramdin was punished by the ICC for claiming a grounded catch, and going against 'the spirit of the game'.

Whats the difference between claiming a grounded catch, and not walking when you know 100% that you are out aka Stuart Broad?

Interested to see opinions

Whatever the rights or wrongs of it not walking is accepted within the game, claiming a catch when you haven't caught it isn't.

Whether Ramdin's punishment is inline with similar offences of claiming a catch is another matter. But the fact that he did it in a global tournament where all the big teams were playing certainly worked against him in this case as he may have been made an example of.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

In terms of following the rules, Ramdin was a cheat whereas Broad didn't do anything wrong. But in terms of ethics and morals, both are ****s.

 

[kyear2]

Both are the same as far as I am concerned, both is cheeting and there is a hyprocricy in the rules to alow the batsmen to cheet and punish the fielder to do the same. punish both or allow both. Plus the same way that the umpire has the authority to review Ramdin's snuff, let the third umpire do the same for obvious mistakes. Do like the NFL and allow reviews an all scoring plays (dismissals) and close calls. Each captain gets one and the third umpire keeps an eye on things for only the absolute howlers.

 

[fredfertang]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of it not walking is accepted within the game, claiming a catch when you haven't caught it isn't.

Whether Ramdin's punishment is inline with similar offences of claiming a catch is another matter. But the fact that he did it in a global tournament where all the big teams were playing certainly worked against him in this case as he may have been made an example of.

This - there are some who will try and draw a nonsensical distinction between the Broad situation and where the batsman feathers the ball to the keeper, but the reality is most batsman don't ever walk, which to my mind is a great shame, but there you have it - at the level I used to play at the game would be unworkable if batsmen weren't honest about edges but that's not the case at higher levels. Imo Broad is certainly in the wrong, and I would question his sportsmanship, but I wouldn't accuse him of trying to cheat.

 

[watson]

Countless batsman have stood their ground when they should have walked. In fact, I would say that most captains over the years have instructed their batsman to take the rough with the smooth, assuming that Umpiring mistakes will even themselves out in the long run. (Ian Chappell springs to mind). Therefore, there is a well accepted precedent for batsman not walking.

However, no such precedent exists for fieldsman claiming a catch when they know the that ball bounced first. It's the lack of precedent that makes the difference, and so the fielder is cheating, and the batsman isn't.

 

[Goughy]

Broad did nothing to deceive the umpire. Catch claimed, bowler appealed, umpire made his decision. Broad did not try to influence the decision. He stood his ground and waited. Clearly a poor decision but Broad was merely a spectator.

Some of the reaction, admittedly in the minority, in here is ridiculous and painful to read.

 

[the big bambino]

I can only shake my head at the parochial excuse making for what was blatant cheating. Second guessing the comparison with a thin edge to the keeper doesn't actually discount the distinction. No batsmen stands their ground when they hit a clear catch to the field, including slip. Or if they do are rightly ridiculed. Broad knew he was out just as much as Ramdin knew he was claiming a dishonest catch. He knew the referrals were used up and decided to try and game the system. Just as Ramdin tried to game the cameras. I believe the irony is Chris Broad sanctioned Ramdin. Pity he didn't instil those values in his less than honest son.

 

[watson]

I can only shake my head at the parochial excuse making for what was blatant cheating. Second guessing the comparison with a thin edge to the keeper doesn't actually discount the distinction. No batsmen stands their ground when they hit a clear catch to the field, including slip. Or if they do are rightly ridiculed. Broad knew he was out just as much as Ramdin knew he was claiming a dishonest catch. He knew the referrals were used up and decided to try and game the system. Just as Ramdin tried to game the cameras. I believe the irony is Chris Broad sanctioned Ramdin. Pity he didn't instil those values in his less than honest son.

If the tables were turned, and Clarke was batting then there is no guarantee that Clarke would have walked either.

So, if Broad did walk, and I was Alastair Cook, then I would have given him a right bollocking as soon as got back into the dressing room for handing the game back to Australia at such a critical stage of the match.

 

[Ruckus]

There is no difference between the Ramdin incident and the Broad one for me. Both involve umpires making incorrect decision (initially at least), both involve players hoping the umpire didn't notice, and both involve players being unsportsmanlike. It would be different if Ramdin actually appealed for the catch, but he didn't - he just went with the umpires decision.