17 years ago today..this happened

[BoyBrumby]

I would've thought the difference between not walking & claiming a catch was obvious. It's essentially the same difference between (dusts off old Jurisprudence text book) taking the Fifth Amendment (refusing to incriminate oneself) & committing perjury.

When one waits for a decision there is no active deception, when one claims a catch on the bounce there certainly is.

Both arguably aren't cricket, but as perjury is a criminal offence (and one of ten commandments thou shalt not bear false witness ) & the fifth amendment is enshrined in the US constitution it's pretty obvious which is the worst sporting sin.

 

[wpdavid]

Does it have him (Broad) smashing down the stumps by any chance?
(The thing won't play for my computer, BTW)

No. That happened a few months later, when they had moved on to NZ/Aus.
What I hadn't originally realised that all the other footage of the Botham incident in England and Broad not going when given out were included to provide background to the Rana/Gatting incident.

 

[Richard]

just written a long post explaining why I dont agree with you Richard..but it didnt go through...so I will say,with regards to nicks, I dont think you really know what you are on about

So you've tried experimenting with it, have you?
(And don't go on about "if you take the degree of error X and place it with ...", because you know as well as I know it's not relevant here)
If you brush the outside-edge with a ball, you will almost always feel it, that's how sensitive the hand is.

 

[Richard]

I would've thought the difference between not walking & claiming a catch was obvious. It's essentially the same difference between (dusts off old Jurisprudence text book) taking the Fifth Amendment (refusing to incriminate oneself) & committing perjury.

When one waits for a decision there is no active deception, when one claims a catch on the bounce there certainly is.

Why is there no active deception?
You are standing your ground, hoping the decision is going to be not-out - pretending you have done nothing wrong when you know you have.

 

[Richard]

just written a long post explaining why I dont agree with you Richard..but it didnt go through...

Just goes to show, always copy long posts before uploading! Takes about 2 seconds and 0 effort, and can save so much heartache...

 

[garage flower]

Why is there no active deception?
You are standing your ground, hoping the decision is going to be not-out - pretending you have done nothing wrong when you know you have.

I agree with Richard on this one. Not walking when you know you've hit it is "actively deceptive". Claiming a catch that's bounced is seen as much worse because it happens much less frequently - it's not an accepted part of the game.

If claiming a catch on the bounce (should be allowed if you take it one-handed ) was common practice and "not walking" rarely happened the reaction to each would - I think - be reversed.

Simply, they're both examples of cheating and cheating - like drugs and loose women - is bad.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why is there no active deception?
You are standing your ground, hoping the decision is going to be not-out - pretending you have done nothing wrong when you know you have.

A batter isn't pretending anything! Short of saying "No nick ump" he's completely passive.

 

[Slow Love™]

Why is there no active deception?
You are standing your ground, hoping the decision is going to be not-out - pretending you have done nothing wrong when you know you have.

Because it's a passive act. As far as I'm concerned, BoyBrumby's post on this relating to perjury and the right to not incriminate oneself is the definitive argument on the subject. And it's a more universal concept than just pertaining to cricket.

 

[garage flower]

A batter isn't pretending anything! Short of saying "No nick ump" he's completely passive.

But surely, if he (or she) were playing the game honestly - without deception - they'd walk, so the "active" bit is...er...not walking.

EDIT: It's also just occurred that batsmen are sometimes more clearly "active" in these cases e.g. rubbing the arm guard when it's hit the glove or simply shaking their head when they've nicked it

 

[garage flower]

Because it's a passive act. As far as I'm concerned, BoyBrumby's post on this relating to perjury and the right to not incriminate oneself is the definitive argument on the subject. And it's a more universal concept than just pertaining to cricket.

I understand the distinction and it's a tricky one, but in my view the batsman who doesn't walk is effectively "appealing" to be given not out when he knows he's out.

 

[Slow Love™]

I understand the distinction and it's a tricky one, but in my view the batsman who doesn't walk is effectively "appealing" to be given not out when he knows he's out.

It's really not a tricky distinction. It's the difference between actively lying, and passively not volunteering the truth.

Nobody's arguing that one of the options is a "good" option - just that on a grading scale, in a variety of contexts, we generally consider one worse than the other, rather than seeing them as equal.

I dunno about your "appealing not to be given out" argument - you're trying to invent active behaviour to get by the distinction made. It's a nice try, though.

 

[Swervy]

with me still in a rather flu ridden state (this has lasted since last Saturday..and its driving me mad),I still cant find the right words to explain what seems glaringly obvious to me..BoyBrumby does seem to have hit the nail slap bang on the head though

 

[Slow Love™]

EDIT: It's also just occurred that batsmen are sometimes more clearly "active" in these cases e.g. rubbing the arm guard when it's hit the glove or simply shaking their head when they've nicked it

Yep, once they get into actively trying to deceive the umpire by suggesting an explanation, then they cross the line, and the behaviour becomes more similar to the other example.

 

[garage flower]

It's really not a tricky distinction. It's the difference between actively lying, and passively not volunteering the truth.

Nobody's arguing that one of the options is a "good" option - just that on a grading scale, in a variety of contexts, we generally consider one worse than the other, rather than seeing them as equal.

I dunno about your "appealing not to be given out" argument - you're trying to invent active behaviour to get by the distinction made. It's a nice try, though.

I meant a tricky issue (at least I don't think it's cut and dried) rather than a tricky distinction between active and passive.

Again, it's a slightly contrived scenario, but what if the catcher didn't appeal for the catch (knowing it had bounced), but the ump gave the decision based on others (who weren't sure) appealing. Wouldn't the catcher not calling the batsman back be just as heinous a "crime" as appealing in the first place and be comparable with not walking (i.e. a passive act)?

I suppose your argument will be that it's not as bad because again he simply hasn't volunteered the truth. That being the case, I'll give up because I'm a bit tired and hungover, Richard seems to have abandoned me (which shouldn't really be a bad thing, I suppose) and I feel like I'm onto a bit of a loser anyway.

 

[Richard]

Nah, was just concentrating on other threads...
garage flower's use of this:

in my view the batsman who doesn't walk is effectively "appealing" to be given not out when he knows he's out

is well put, something that, not surprisingly, was beyond me.

I dunno about your "appealing not to be given out" argument - you're trying to invent active behaviour to get by the distinction made.

How?
What is a definition of "active"?
It can all depend, as far as I can tell.
From what I can deduce, it would basically refer to something attempting to influence the game. Not something involving (or not involving) movement.
As long as such an attempt is made, it's active behaviour.

 

[Richard]

I agree with Richard on this one. Not walking when you know you've hit it is "actively deceptive". Claiming a catch that's bounced is seen as much worse because it happens much less frequently - it's not an accepted part of the game.

If claiming a catch on the bounce (should be allowed if you take it one-handed ) was common practice and "not walking" rarely happened the reaction to each would - I think - be reversed.

If you ask me this has hit the nail on the head.
It's all - and this is not uncommon, either - about what is accepted and what isn't - what has been accepted down the years.
It's just like the "is racism or homophobia worse?" There are still many people who'd tell you that racism is the worse - because it's been identified as immoral for longer. Fortunately, the realisation is slowly coming that any form of illicit discrimination is as immoral as another - be it racism, xenophobia or discrimination against reformed criminals.

 

[Slow Love™]

What is a definition of "active"?
It can all depend, as far as I can tell.
From what I can deduce, it would basically refer to something attempting to influence the game. Not something involving (or not involving) movement.

It has nothing to do with movement. I really don't think it's that hard a concept to grasp. Go back to BoyBrumby's post about jurisprudence - it more than adequately explains the distinction, and how we treat the two behaviors differently.

 

[garage flower]

What is a definition of "active"?
It can all depend, as far as I can tell.
From what I can deduce, it would basically refer to something attempting to influence the game. Not something involving (or not involving) movement.
As long as such an attempt is made, it's active behaviour.

This is the nub of the issue. I agree that not giving yourself out when you know you're out is actively deceptive.

 

[Slow Love™]

I meant a tricky issue (at least I don't think it's cut and dried) rather than a tricky distinction between active and passive.

Again, it's a slightly contrived scenario, but what if the catcher didn't appeal for the catch (knowing it had bounced), but the ump gave the decision based on others (who weren't sure) appealing. Wouldn't the catcher not calling the batsman back be just as heinous a "crime" as appealing in the first place and be comparable with not walking (i.e. a passive act)?

I suppose your argument will be that it's not as bad because again he simply hasn't volunteered the truth. That being the case, I'll give up because I'm a bit tired and hungover, Richard seems to have abandoned me (which shouldn't really be a bad thing, I suppose) and I feel like I'm onto a bit of a loser anyway.

Yeah, you've pretty much covered it. It still kinda sucks, but it's just not on the same level as claiming the catch when you know you haven't taken it.

As to the last paragraph, LOL. Have a good sleep, mate - I always enjoy your posts.

 

[garage flower]

It has nothing to do with movement. I really don't think it's that hard a concept to grasp. Go back to BoyBrumby's post about jurisprudence - it more than adequately explains the distinction, and how we treat the two behaviors differently.

I think we understand the concept and the distinction. I suppose it's a personal view. I'd feel as guilty not walking as I would claiming a non-catch and I'd certainly feel equally terrible not calling back a batsman given out to my non-catch (even if I hadn't appealed).