Gilchrist, walking, appealing and sportsmanship

[silentstriker]

Are you serious? Let me understand your claim: A player (let's use Kumble as an example) does not appeal for an LBW decision where the ball pitched outside the line of leg, or pitched outside off and the batsman played a shot?

 

[Rollypolly1]

Are you serious? Let me understand your claim: A player (let's use Kumble as an example) does not appeal for an LBW decision where the ball pitched outside the line of leg, or pitched outside off and the batsman played a shot?

I have no claim barring that Gillchrist was dishonest in his appeal. It is *YOU* that claimed all players are dishonest or none are and that all players appeal for everything. I've justified MY claim - now it is your turn to justify yours'.
As i said, either prove your claim that ALL players are cheats or NONE are (the all-or-nothing gambit) and that ALL players appeal for EVERYTHING or just concede that its your opinion and not a fact like you potrayed it to be.
Pretty simple, mate.

 

[silentstriker]

Here are some instances just in the last match by India:

25.4 Harbhajan Singh to Ponting, no run, Ponting moves his front pad outside the line of off stump and tries to sweep, he misses and the Indians appeal once the ball hits the pad, rather optimistic that was

30.4 Singh to Symonds, no run, full-length delivery pitches outside leg stump and thuds into Symonds' pads after he misses the flick, the slips appeal but the ball pitched outside leg

47.5 Kumble to Hogg, 2 runs, Kumble appeals for leg before but hogg was well forward and the impact was outside the line of off stump

60.5 Kumble to Hogg, no run, the least convincing appeal ever for an edge to bat pad, a good catch from Jaffer but there was no wood there, as the fielders seem to know by their wan appeal

41.4 Kumble to Hayden, no run, another loud appeal for lbw as Hayden misses the sweep, he was hit on the pad just outside the line of off stump

Why did they appeal? Every bowler in every match of cricket that I've watched (hundreds by now), has appealed for stuff like this.

 

[ozone]

Now, be a chum and prove your claims or else retract them/qualify them as nothing more than opinion.

You truly are starting to get on my nerves and its not even me you're patronising.

You cannot base your opinion of someone purely on one incident. And if you do, it makes you the fool. By all means continue saying that Gilchrist is as dishonest as they come but I don't think you'll get many people agreeing with you as it is simply tour opinion. I dunno what nationality you are or how much Aussie crciket you watch, but I have to think that you must have watched very little of Gilchrist if this is truly what you think.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Here are some instances just in the last match by India:

25.4 Harbhajan Singh to Ponting, no run, Ponting moves his front pad outside the line of off stump and tries to sweep, he misses and the Indians appeal once the ball hits the pad, rather optimistic that was

30.4 Singh to Symonds, no run, full-length delivery pitches outside leg stump and thuds into Symonds' pads after he misses the flick, the slips appeal but the ball pitched outside leg

47.5 Kumble to Hogg, 2 runs, Kumble appeals for leg before but hogg was well forward and the impact was outside the line of off stump

60.5 Kumble to Hogg, no run, the least convincing appeal ever for an edge to bat pad, a good catch from Jaffer but there was no wood there, as the fielders seem to know by their wan appeal

41.4 Kumble to Hayden, no run, another loud appeal for lbw as Hayden misses the sweep, he was hit on the pad just outside the line of off stump

Why did they appeal? Every bowler in every match of cricket that I've watched (hundreds by now), has appealed for stuff like this.

Irrelevant. You claimed all or nothing, mate. now go around proving your all-or-nothing claim. Selective quotation means nothing,since nowhere in your example does it prove the point that either ALL players are cheats or NONE are or that ALL players appeal for EVERYTHING.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, tell me a bowler who didn't appeal for things like this, or admit you're wrong. They all appeal for things that are not out. I gave you three bowlers in one Test match from one side.

 

[Rollypolly1]

You cannot base your opinion of someone purely on one incident.

Sorry, not true. I can and i will. So can the courts and they do!

And if you do, it makes you the fool.

Then it makes all courts worldwide to be fools. In that case, i accept the tag of being a fool if i am gonna be kept company by the entire justice system of the world.

I don't think you'll get many people agreeing with you as it is simply tour opinion

Whatever on earth made you think i am looking for popular support ? I am voicing my opinion and unlike some, i've backed up my opinion with reason!

I dunno what nationality you are or how much Aussie crciket you watch, but I have to think that you must have watched very little of Gilchrist if this is truly what you think.

my nationality is irrelevant. How much Aussie cricket i watch ? quite a lot and i have no hesitation in saying that Aussie cricketers (and sportsmen in general) are one of the worst behaved in the world.
How on earth such a crass and crude sporting culture produced a pearl of a gentleman like Pat Rafter remains a mystery however.

 

[NUFAN]

Howzat.

A shortened version of the term "how is that, umpire"?

If you appeal howzat your never cheating, far out..

 

[Rollypolly1]

Well, tell me a bowler who didn't appeal for things like this, or admit you're wrong. They all appeal for things that are not out. I gave you three bowlers in one Test match from one side.

I don't have to admit anything. And am i not getting through to you or what ?
YOU made two claims- where you used the word 'ALL players' in two insinuations- that either ALL players are cheats or NONE are and that ALL players appeal for everything.

Given that you are typing in English here, i'd expect you to know the definition of the word 'all'. And the burden of proof/admittance lies with YOU, not with me.

You giving me 3 bowlers or 20 does nothing whatsoever to back up your point involving all players.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't have to admit anything. And am i not getting through to you or what ?
YOU made two claims- where you used the word 'ALL players' in two insinuations- that either ALL players are cheats or NONE are and that ALL players appeal for everything.

Given that you are typing in English here, i'd expect you to know the definition of the word 'all'. And the burden of proof/admittance lies with YOU, not with me.

You giving me 3 bowlers or 20 does nothing whatsoever to back up your point involving all players.

You're being ridiculous here. They all appeal for things they know is not out, and as an example I showed you one match. If you want further proof, I'll point you to this resource and you can see for yourself. Or you're deluded. Or you can give me one match where this didn't happen.

 

[Ikki]

I don't care what Gillchrist said. I've played the game long enough to KNOW that from the angle and distance Gillchrist was, NO WAY could he have missed seeing Dravid's bat hidden behind the pads and the ball brushing the pad instead. Yet he appealed for caught behind. That is as dishonest as it comes, mate. And i don't give a toss what Gillchrist has to say about it, since it is out there for everyone to see.

How could there be "NO WAY". You are insane. It passed the bat and bad (which were close together) and carried to Gilchrist. How is appealing, in a manner of questioning, even in the same vicinity as cheating?

Then you go and try to make this preposterous claim that he somehow walks in important games to later get away with other offenses. Bull-crap, I've said it again.

 

[Ikki]

Whatever on earth made you think i am looking for popular support ? I am voicing my opinion and unlike some, i've backed up my opinion with reason!

 

[Rollypolly1]

How could there be "NO WAY"

Because mate, when you are standing just a couple of feet behind the batsman, it is clear as daylight when the batsman hides his bat BEHIND THE PAD.

You are insane.

Is it your upbringing to get personal insults in the fray when logic deserts you ? Can't say i am surprised, however! now, kindly get a grip on your personal insults or else i will be forced to report your uncouth behaviour. I normally give out a warning for first-timers and this is your's.

Then you go and try to make this preposterous claim that he somehow walks in important games to later get away with other offenses

Yes. Its called image-management. Not a very hard concept..well maybe for some.
Given how Gillchrist blatently cheated with his appeal against Dravid last match, it is no way preposterous.

 

[ozone]

Sorry, not true. I can and i will. So can the courts and they do!

Courts use character witnesses which is essentially what we are for Gilchrist in this situation. However, the character witness is always someone who knows the person in question and nobody on here (to my knowledge), knows Adam Gilchrist away from cricket.

You have provided no good reason to call Adam Gilchrist dishonest. You yourself cannot be 100% sure that Gilchrist could clearly see the incident. You may think you can, but you were not there, and only he knows whether he could see it clearly.

I had actually guessed from your general stance that you were not looking for friends.

Your nationality does matter as it provides bias. Don't try to pass opinions as fact. Saying Australia sportsman are some of the worst behaved in the world is not fact and cannot be proved as such.

 

[Rollypolly1]

how very convincing!
yes, a person standing 2 feet behind you cannot see that the bat is hidden behind the pad but is capable of seeing balls flying at 90mph and catching them. Yes, convincing indeed.
Your bias is obvious, mate.
And given that you resorted to personal abuse, it is pretty clear that you've lost the plot as well.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Courts use character witnesses which is essentially what we are for Gilchrist in this situation. However, the character witness is always someone who knows the person in question and nobody on here (to my knowledge), knows Adam Gilchrist away from cricket.

You have provided no good reason to call Adam Gilchrist dishonest. You yourself cannot be 100% sure that Gilchrist could clearly see the incident. You may think you can, but you were not there, and only he knows whether he could see it clearly.

I had actually guessed from your general stance that you were not looking for friends.

Your nationality does matter as it provides bias. Don't try to pass opinions as fact. Saying Australia sportsman are some of the worst behaved in the world is not fact and cannot be proved as such.

So you think i cannot be 100% sure that a wicketkeeper, standing two feet behind the batsman, can see the bat hidden behind the pad, given that it is DIRECTLY in his line of vision ? The same wicket keeper that catches 90mph balls with regularity (thus ruling out pi$$-poor eyesight as alibi) ?
Pfffft. Try better reasoning next time, mate.
Or better yet, try playing the game for a change.

By the way, looking for friends ? eh ? Just how pathetic do you have to be to go out on the net to look for friends ? i suppose if you don't have any in your real life.....

As per nationality providing bias- that says a lot about you than me. Thank you for admitting your bias in the first place.
And lastly, nowhere did i claim it to be a fact that Aussie sportsmen are the worst behaved in the world- it is very much my opinion.
And a quick search of the net will prove to you that i am certainly not alone in this-neither is it one particular nationality who claims that either.

 

[Ikki]

Because mate, when you are standing just a couple of feet behind the batsman, it is clear as daylight when the batsman hides his bat BEHIND THE PAD.

It is not as clear as daylight. Not, considering it was so close and even less through a helmet.

Gilchrist by his own admission wasn't sure so he asked the umpire by way of appeal. The umpire's blunder is of no consequence to Gilchrist's character. He made an appeal because he was not sure.

Furthermore, the fact that you have a lack of evidence with regard to trying to paint Gilchrist out as a cheat says enough. Worse still you cannot seem to acknowledge that it is indeed possible to have not clearly seen the ball not touch the bat. Thanks to ultra slow motion replay with zoom we can tell it didn't. Not sure Gilchrist had the same luxury.

Is it your upbringing to get personal insults in the fray when logic deserts you ? Can't say i am surprised, however! now, kindly get a grip on your personal insults or else i will be forced to report your uncouth behaviour. I normally give out a warning for first-timers and this is your's.

You are insane.

You are trolling the board. Your argument is hollow and was mashed to bits in consecutive posts. Silentstriker actually did you a favour by entertaining/refuting your ridiculous notion in that players do go up when the ball fly a wicket-taking path. There is no dishonesty about it.

In fact, your assertion is so absurd that you're inferring players will know if it is out or not all the time. When, really, they mostly won't.

Yes. Its called image-management. Not a very hard concept..well maybe for some.
Given how Gillchrist blatently cheated with his appeal against Dravid last match, it is no way preposterous.

Haha, yeah, sure. Image-management. One iffy appeal outweighing a career's worth of honesty. Very good job by Gilly there. Great deductions.

I think the barrage of new members have lowered the average IQ around here.

 

[Ikki]

how very convincing!
yes, a person standing 2 feet behind you cannot see that the bat is hidden behind the pad but is capable of seeing balls flying at 90mph and catching them. Yes, convincing indeed.
Your bias is obvious, mate.
And given that you resorted to personal abuse, it is pretty clear that you've lost the plot as well.

MY bias is obvious.

At least where you lack logic you make it up with your humour.

Let's equate the two large bowling gloves and a relatively catchable ball to needing to clearly see only a millimeter of touch on a bat...

 

[Rollypolly1]

Gilchrist by his own admission wasn't sure so he asked the umpire by way of appeal.

Dear God, Gilly said it, so it must be true!
You really believe everything everyone says to the media, eh ?

Again i say, if a wicketkeeper, standing two feet from the batsman, claims that he was unsure about bat hidden behind pad, then he is either a total liar or blind as a bat. Take your pick,for there is no other logical conclusion left.

Worse still you cannot seem to acknowledge that it is indeed possible to have not clearly seen the ball not touch the bat.

It is not possible to have missed the FACT that the batsman was hiding his bat behind the pad when you are standing directly behind him.

In fact, your assertion is so absurd that you're inferring players will know if it is out or not all the time. When, really, they mostly won't.

no i did not infer that players know whether it is out or not every single time.Just that sometimes, some players (particularly from a certain nation) appeal even when they KNOW it is not out.

You are insane.

Again i say,lay off the personal insults...or did your parents not teach you that ?

One iffy appeal outweighing a career's worth of honesty.

One that i care to point out right now. Career's worth of honesty is nothing but media nonsense.

 

[ozone]

So you think i cannot be 100% sure that a wicketkeeper, standing two feet behind the batsman, can see the bat hidden behind the pad, given that it is DIRECTLY in his line of vision ? The same wicket keeper that catches 90mph balls with regularity (thus ruling out pi$$-poor eyesight as alibi) ?
Pfffft. Try better reasoning next time, mate.
Or better yet, try playing the game for a change.

By the way, looking for friends ? eh ? Just how pathetic do you have to be to go out on the net to look for friends ? i suppose if you don't have any in your real life.....

As per nationality providing bias- that says a lot about you than me. Thank you for admitting your bias in the first place.
And lastly, nowhere did i claim it to be a fact that Aussie sportsmen are the worst behaved in the world- it is very much my opinion.
And a quick search of the net will prove to you that i am certainly not alone in this-neither is it one particular nationality who claims that either.

To quote you:

And given that you resorted to personal abuse, it is pretty clear that you've lost the plot as well.

I can only imagine in telling me to play the game, you are insinuating that I don't really know a lot about it. Not something I'm going to take seriously from someone who thinks Gilchrist is as dishonest as they come.

Moving on from the little jibes, it may interest you to know I'm English and would not really be said to be pro-australian.

If you have ever kept wicket to decent spin bowlers, you would know that your eyes are focused on the ball, and need to be in order to catch it. Therefore, it is often common not to see whether the ball nicks the bat or pad, because you are focused on the ball and only notice a deviation (and before you have another go, I have perfect eyesight).