Conflict within 'the spirit of the game'.

[silentstriker]

This bloke speaks more sense than silentstriker

Don't you have a Kohli stalking expedition to organize or something?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Again, we are talking about the instances where a batsman IS sure he hit it and stays.

But we only ever know that in hindisight. At the time there's no way of knowing so the batsman has a right to wait.

 

[Cabinet96]

at my grade level we sometimes have to umpire ourselves, our rule is if you hit it walk, so you don't put pressure on you're mate who's umpiring. if you have a paid umpire, don't walk.

Haha, same. Never a pleasant one when you think your teammate has hit it but he doesn't walk.

 

[silentstriker]

But we only ever know that in hindisight. At the time there's no way of knowing so the batsman has a right to wait.

Huh? There's no instance where the batsman is sure he has hit it?

 

[Burgey]

Show me a cricketer and I'll show you a hypocrite. I don't have a problem with Broad waiting for the decision. That's a matter for him. I know blokes like Gilly get lauded for being walkers, but he never had a problem appealing for blatantly not out lbws or for catches behind either. Same for Lara, who would appeal at slip for things that weren't out. I'm not bagging those two guys for what they did, it's a bit of a natural thing to appeal I suppose, and there seems to be some idea that "you're only asking a question".

Mark Waugh was the great arbiter of whethr something was out. He never appealed unless he thought something was out. You'd see everyone else shouting and he'd just be standing there impassively. Yet he wasn't a walker when he batted.

 

[uvelocity]

Haha, same. Never a pleasant one when you think your teammate has hit it but he doesn't walk.

Just gotta give it out

 

[Burgey]

But we only ever know that in hindisight. At the time there's no way of knowing so the batsman has a right to wait.

That may be one of the most apposite spelling errors in history.

 

[Jono]

Don't you have a Kohli stalking expedition to organize or something?

organise*

 

[social]

Show me a cricketer and I'll show you a hypocrite. I don't have a problem with Broad waiting for the decision. That's a matter for him. I know blokes like Gilly get lauded for being walkers, but he never had a problem appealing for blatantly not out lbws or for catches behind either. Same for Lara, who would appeal at slip for things that weren't out. I'm not bagging those two guys for what they did, it's a bit of a natural thing to appeal I suppose, and there seems to be some idea that "you're only asking a question".

Mark Waugh was the great arbiter of whethr something was out. He never appealed unless he thought something was out. You'd see everyone else shouting and he'd just be standing there impassively. Yet he wasn't a walker when he batted.

Agreed

Love that example you bring up about Kumble's spirit of cricket bs and his sledging of Yousuf

Pretty much sums the cricket world up in a nutshell - anything goes unless it is to our disadvantage

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Huh? There's no instance where the batsman is sure he has hit it?

No, there's no instance when anyone other than the batsman knows if he knows whether he's hit it when he doesn't walk.

That may be one of the most apposite spelling errors in history.

Haha, took me a while there

 

[the big bambino]

Standing your ground means there's a possibility you're not sure. Claiming a catch means you're stating something with certainty. They're not the same thing.

While there is a good reason to stand your ground for a faint edge or if you think the catch is actually a half volley neither pertained to the Broad dismissal and its no different in conduct to someone like Ramdin claiming a catch.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

There's a possibility that broad didn't know if he had, though. An absurdly small one, but still a possibility. With ramdin the ball was on the ground, there was zero doubt.

Additionally the umpire has a clear view of a batsman edging a ball but often can't see in the case of a claimed catch.

 

[the big bambino]

Small possibility someone believed they caught a ball when they didn't.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah but the umpire often can't see it so has no ability to make his own judgement.

 

[silentstriker]

No, there's no instance when anyone other than the batsman knows if he knows whether he's hit it when he doesn't walk.


Haha, took me a while there

So then if he knows he hit it and doesnt walk, why is that not cheating?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

So then if he knows he hit it and doesnt walk, why is that not cheating?

How do we know he knows he hit it? Does a striker in football stop mid-play just because he knows he was offside? No, he waits for the call because he knows his own judgement isn't perfect.

 

[Maximas]

Bowlers aren't cheating if they appeal for something that isn't out, they aren't cheating if the appeal is successful either, cricketers who choose to leave the final decision to the umpires aren't cheats.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Bowlers aren't cheating if they appeal for something that isn't out, they aren't cheating if the appeal is successful either, cricketers who choose to leave the final decision to the umpires aren't cheats.

****ing oath.