Walk or not walk

[Lillian Thomson]

So I've been mistaken when believing it was the umpire's responsibility to make decisions?

That isn't relevant to the point I was making. If a batsman is caught in the deep or bowled he doesn't hang around waiting for the umpire to give him out, because he knows he can't get away with it. All I'm saying is if you don't walk don't pretend that you're doing it out of a moral duty to the umpire when all it's doing is making his job more difficult. Batsman don't walk if they can get away with it for no other reason than personal and team gain. To say it's out of respect for the umpire is nonsense.

 

[fredfertang]

In some sports "simulation" is a heinous crime

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In some sports "simulation" is a heinous crime

I believe that's the main reason the World Chess Championships had poor viewing figures.

 

[fredfertang]

I believe that's the main reason the World Chess Championships had poor viewing figures.

I thought that was because the DRS wasn't popular?

 

[Furball]

That isn't relevant to the point I was making. If a batsman is caught in the deep or bowled he doesn't hang around waiting for the umpire to give him out, because he knows he can't get away with it. All I'm saying is if you don't walk don't pretend that you're doing it out of a moral duty to the umpire when all it's doing is making his job more difficult. Batsman don't walk if they can get away with it for no other reason than personal and team gain. To say it's out of respect for the umpire is nonsense.

So why don't you get to stand your ground when you know you've hit it into your pads and he gives you lbw?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So why don't you get to stand your ground when you know you've hit it into your pads and he gives you lbw?

Not sure what your point is with that. It has nothing to do with my post you've quoted.

 

[Dan]

So why don't you get to stand your ground when you know you've hit it into your pads and he gives you lbw?

Walking before an umpire makes his decision is completely different to opposing an umpire's actual decision.

If you wait until after an umpire has given you not out, and only then walk, you're an utter prick for undermining the umpire. Same as if you stand there having smashed it into your pads. Sure, you're hard done by, but you're an utter prick for undermining the umpire.

 

[Dan]

With the DRS as it is there's no place for walking. When you have no reviews left it's a result of poor tactical play - if you review often in an attempt to get every possible wicket, you're running the risk of losing them. You had the option to be 'defensive' and save your reviews for a sure thing, but you didn't. So when a batsman stands his ground it's not outside of the game any more - it's the opposition punishing poor tactics.

Yeah I definitely agree with this though. DRS changes it entirely.

 

[fredfertang]

So why don't you get to stand your ground when you know you've hit it into your pads and he gives you lbw?

Because you're wrong, unless you're playing in a Test match against anyone other than India and you have a review left

 

[Jono]

"there's no place for walking". What a weird ****ing statement.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

DRS changes nothing from a moral point of view - ie whether you're happy to cheat or not. It changes everything from a tactical point of view, but I didn't think that was the point of the original question.

 

[Compton]

Not walking isn't cheating any more than appealing for an lbw when you know it's sliding down leg or appealing a caught behind when you know it clipped his leg.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Not walking isn't cheating any more than appealing for an lbw when you know it's sliding down leg or appealing a caught behind when you know it clipped his leg.

This is exactly the point. In my first post on the matter I said I as a batsman will walk when I know I'm out if you as a bowler don't appeal when you know I'm not. Both are cheating/gamesmanship, and pretending that forcing the umpire to make a decision in either case is respecting him is nonsense.

 

[SteveNZ]

With the DRS as it is there's no place for walking. When you have no reviews left it's a result of poor tactical play - if you review often in an attempt to get every possible wicket, you're running the risk of losing them. You had the option to be 'defensive' and save your reviews for a sure thing, but you didn't. So when a batsman stands his ground it's not outside of the game any more - it's the opposition punishing poor tactics.

Wouldn't say there's no place for walking, if that's where your moral compass points and you do it straight away - no issue in it. Some live by the edict that what goes around comes around, some believe in karma, some believe in honesty, whatever. In theory there isn't, just as in theory your 100th run is as beneficial as your 22nd, and you shouldn't labour any harder for either.

But no possibility of agreeing more that there's no forgiveness given to anyone who cops a poor decision with reviews lost. There's no way for the ICC to produce jurisdiction to guard against egos and hail mary's with reviews, so team cop it sweet if they get it.

 

[Burgey]

Every panto need a villain. Blokes like Broad or Warner are easy to dislike and become he focus for disgruntled fans. Nevill has just started his international career and seems a pretty unobtrusive sort of bloke.

 

[GIMH]

"there's no place for walking". What a weird ****ing statement.

Especially coming from a countryman of the Proclaimers ffs

 

[cnerd123]

This is exactly the point. In my first post on the matter I said I as a batsman will walk when I know I'm out if you as a bowler don't appeal when you know I'm not. Both are cheating/gamesmanship, and pretending that forcing the umpire to make a decision in either case is respecting him is nonsense.

Nah I disagree. In the club cricket I've played we pay the umpires good money to stand their and officiate. Therefore they should make a decision. If a batsman has nicked it I don't expect him to walk off till the finger is raised. There is nothing wrong with expecting an umpire to do his job.

 

[Jono]

That's not his point. His point is that if you choose not to walk, fine. But don't act like you're choosing not to walk for the good of the game in general or for the respect of the umpire.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yeah I've never heard an umpire thank a batsman for not walking, but I've heard plenty thank a batsman for walking. The whole "respect for the umpire" thing is a laughable argument. Anyone who buys it should chat to some actual umpires and see what the vast majority see as more respectful. And as Fred says, walking after an umpire has already given you not out is a very different thing from walking before he has made a decision.

LT also has a fair point regarding bowlers who appeal knowing it's not out, which is equivalent AFAIC. Fielders claiming catches when they know it's hit the ground also falls into this category but for some reason is looked upon far worse.

 

[Furball]

I've not once framed it as being about respect for the umpire. I just don't think it's right for players to be making the decisions for him.