Conflict within 'the spirit of the game'.

[davidmutton]

But not everything was very equitable back in the old days though - umpires were renowned for not giving captains out because they wrote reports on the officials after each match. Personally I don't have a problem with walking or not walking but can't abide the likes of the venerable Colin Cowdrey (who did so much to evangelize the spirit of cricket) who walked after they had reached a century but stayed at the start of their innings.

 

[Spikey]

Sins of omission are no sins at all | Cricket News | Australia in England - The Investec Ashes | ESPN Cricinfo

yeah that basically sums it up for me

 

[NasserFan207]

It's all very well asking batsmen to be honest but what's the honest batsman to do when he's given out caught behind when he hasn't hit it?

Batsmen should only be honest when fielding teams stop appealing for decisions when they know the batsman isn't out.

I agree with this, and its why I think neither should be penalized. Hopefully one day all decisions will be made quickly through technology anyway, and this whole business can be forgotten about on both sides.

 

[Neil Pickup]

If someone would like to tell me what kind of reactions are necessary to stop umpires giving me out LBW when I hit it then that would be much appreciated.

 

[Esperance]

Point towards your bat with an irate look on your face.

 

[fredfertang]

If someone would like to tell me what kind of reactions are necessary to stop umpires giving me out LBW when I hit it then that would be much appreciated.

You clearly have the wrong sort of reputation, albeit the right one, if you see what I mean

 

[Neil Pickup]

Question to those who think Broad should have been banned/fined/reprimanded:

Clarke nicked off, was given out, and then reviewed it. Thoughts?

 

[Esperance]

Clarke's always been a ****.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Will preface this by saying I have no problem with what Broad did.

A whole load of stuff has been said in this thread and most of it is true, but also most of it is entirely intrinsically irrelevant from a moral point of view.

What is relevant is that both the Broad incident and the Ramdin incident involve a player knowing that he is benefiting from an umpiring error, and the level of benefit is the same in both cases (a wicket wrongly given versus a wicket wrongly not given).

It's basically another case of society (in this case the cricketing society) arbitrarily deciding what is the norm in various different circumstances for no good reason.

 

[GIMH]

Question to those who think Broad should have been banned/fined/reprimanded:

Clarke nicked off, was given out, and then reviewed it. Thoughts?

The key question here is did Clarke think he hadn't hit it? Or did he opportunistically know it was the slightest of edges and, after what happened to Trott, Ian Bell @Sydney last Ashes and various other instances, think that the technology may come to his rescue?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

And therein lies the rub with censuring players for not walking. We can't be 100% sure that the player knows they edged it. Even with one like Broad's, if he impacted bat on pad at the same time, could we guarantee 100% that he knew he edged it. I mean, in this example we're pretty sure he edged it, but the thinner edges I don't think we can be anywhere near certain.

So, if we want to censure Broad and not Clarke in this case (who I can believe thought he didn't edge it) then where is the line between what should be punished and what shouldn't?

Where as with the Ramdin or Rashid Latif dropped catches, we can pretty much guarantee they knew that they didn't catch the ball.

In my view, the less grey areas the better.

 

[Spikey]

Question to those who think Broad should have been banned/fined/reprimanded:

Clarke nicked off, was given out, and then reviewed it. Thoughts?

hey no-one answer that before they answer my question here
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/champions-trophy-2013/59935-ramdin-ban.html#post3079486
.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

We can't be 100% sure that the player knows they edged it.

[/thread]. Every batsman has the right to stand their ground because of this simple fact. Even if a batsman did think they'd hit it, why not wait for a second opinion anyway? It all happens so quickly you can never know.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I'd rather everyone just be honest, personally.

I'd rather people just didn't commit crimes so we wouldn't need police or courts too. If you rely on honesty then you make it absurdly easy to cheat.

 

[silentstriker]

Love the active vs. passive argument. It's like saying well if you rob a store and are smart enough to remain silent, it's different to actively saying you didn't rob a store. In both cases, you refuse to cooperate. And then video evidence convicts you both times. The crime is the same. It's such an artificial distinction that people are making just because standards have changed. Not too long ago, both would have been branded cheaters.


/for the record, I don't mind either...

 

[wellAlbidarned]

"You have the right to remain silent"

 

[silentstriker]

Yea. But when you're convicted from video evidence, you don't get a free pass from being called a criminal just because you stayed silent.

 

[fredfertang]

"You have the right to remain silent"

Not always these days, and its never an unqualified right anymore

 

[fredfertang]

Question to those who think Broad should have been banned/fined/reprimanded:

Clarke nicked off, was given out, and then reviewed it. Thoughts?

What advice do you give your charges on whether to walk or not?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yea. But when you're convicted from video evidence, you don't get a free pass from being called a criminal just because you stayed silent.

I think we're pretty effectively concluding that analogies between sport and the justice system don't really work