Gilchrist, walking, appealing and sportsmanship

[Top_Cat]

Because then you've every right to make a fuss when you get said bad decision. (And maybe if more people do, the damn stuff will get sorted sooner)

And of course making a fuss will encourage an umpire to change his mind, right? Bzzt, no it it won't because while you're still red-faced and bitching about a decision, you're still out and telling your story walking, pal. Making a fuss solves nothing other than to allow the aggrieved party the opportunity to vent a bit. No umpire is going to say to himself "Wow, that last guy sure complained a lot. I better concentrate harder." because having someone complain vehemently at your decision does, in fact, the exact opposite; it induces a confirmation bias. In a situation of strong cognitive dissonance where you've made a decision but you're getting bollocked, the natural human tendency is to look for reasons for why you're right. Objective analysis may come later but most of the time, it doesn't especially when in the case of a dodgy LBW, etc., a lot of it is down more to interpretation than objectivity. Basically, the sort of introspection required to question not only the decision but assumptions underpinning it is huge and most people would rather just assume that batsman was either wrong, a loser or disappointed at being given out.

Not walking ever but simultaneously not making a fuss when given a roughie seems the less stressful option all-round. I'd bet I'm a far less wound-up person than you are, Richie.

 

[Agent TBY]

And of course making a fuss will encourage an umpire to change his mind, right? Bzzt, no it it won't because while you're still red-faced and bitching about a decision, you're still out and telling your story walking, pal. Making a fuss solves nothing other than to allow the aggrieved party the opportunity to vent a bit. Not walking ever but simultaneously not making a fuss when given a roughie seems the less stressful option all-round. I'd bet I'm a far less wound-up person than you are, Richie.

You don't get it. When a walker gets given out incorrectly, he can make a fuss wherever. However, someone who's been the beneficiary of an earlier incorrect decision where he didn't walk will just get told "What goes around, comes around".

 

[Richard]

And of course making a fuss will encourage an umpire to change his mind, right? Bzzt, no it it won't because while you're still red-faced and bitching about a decision, you're still out and telling your story walking, pal. Making a fuss solves nothing other than to allow the aggrieved party the opportunity to vent a bit. No umpire is going to say to himself "Wow, that last guy sure complained a lot. I better concentrate harder." because having someone complain vehemently at your decision does, in fact, the exact opposite; it induces a confirmation bias. In a situation of strong cognitive dissonance where you've made a decision but you're getting bollocked, the natural human tendency is to look for reasons for why you're right. Objective analysis may come later but most of the time, it doesn't especially when in the case of a dodgy LBW, etc., a lot of it is down more to interpretation than objectivity. Basically, the sort of introspection required to question not only the decision but assumptions underpinning it is huge and most people would rather just assume that batsman was either wrong, a loser or disappointed at being given out.

Not walking ever but simultaneously not making a fuss when given a roughie seems the less stressful option all-round. I'd bet I'm a far less wound-up person than you are, Richie.

As Sriram (sort of) said, the point is that he has every right to and will gain sympathy by making said fuss. It won't reverse the decision, of course it won't, but it will attain the moral high-ground.

Anyone who simply assumes an honest batsman a sore loser when given out lbw having hit it \ given out caught behind when they haven't is someone who lacks the spirit of cricket in their souls.

 

[archie mac]

I think the last Australian WK that only appealed when he was 100% sure was Bert Oldfield

Not saying it is right to appeal when you are not 100% sure but all international team do it, not just the Aussies

 

[Top_Cat]

As Sriram (sort of) said, the point is that he has every right to and will gain sympathy by making said fuss. It won't reverse the decision, of course it won't, but it will attain the moral high-ground.

Maybe this just highlights a difference in our life philosophies more than anything then because I don't see the point in attaining moral high ground unless there's a practical implication.

Anyone who simply assumes an honest batsman a sore loser when given out lbw having hit it \ given out caught behind when they haven't is someone who lacks the spirit of cricket in their souls.

See I don't assume 'sore loser' as much as I ask what the point of complaining is.

 

[Johnners]

So let me get this straight, some people are saying that players should really only be appealing when they are 100% convinced of an edge etc? I don't get whats wrong with appealing if you are say 75% certain, because in the end, no matter how certain you are of a dismissal, all you are doing is asking the umpire. Why leave it to chance, and not appeal, when theres every chance the batsmen could well be out?

 

[Richard]

Maybe this just highlights a difference in our life philosophies more than anything then because I don't see the point in attaining moral high ground unless there's a practical implication.

Well in my experience it can be useful.

For one thing, it always used to be said in the English domestic game that pretty much everyone walked when they nicked one. Therefore, bad caught-behind decisions just didn't happen.

See I don't assume 'sore loser' as much as I ask what the point of complaining is.

The more complaints about bad Umpiring decisons, the more likely something is to be done to stop them happening.

At least, that's the way. No complaints = no change made. Mostly, at least.

 

[Agent TBY]

So let me get this straight, some people are saying that players should really only be appealing when they are 100% convinced of an edge etc? I don't get whats wrong with appealing if you are say 75% certain, because in the end, no matter how certain you are of a dismissal, all you are doing is asking the umpire. Why leave it to chance, and not appeal, when theres every chance the batsmen could well be out?

I don't see how a Wicketkeeper who watches the ball and nothing else can't notice what is a nick and what is not.

 

[Richard]

So let me get this straight, some people are saying that players should really only be appealing when they are 100% convinced of an edge etc? I don't get whats wrong with appealing if you are say 75% certain, because in the end, no matter how certain you are of a dismissal, all you are doing is asking the umpire. Why leave it to chance, and not appeal, when theres every chance the batsmen could well be out?

Think putting exact percentages on it is pretty impractical TBH. More accurate would be to simply say "is sure it's out"; "think it might be out" and "know it's not". I'd have no issue with anyone appealing if they were certain a batsman had nicked\gloved one or if they thought they had. But I would if they saw bat pass ball with 10cm of daylight between. Disgraceful sportsmanship.

 

[Richard]

I don't see how a Wicketkeeper who watches the ball and nothing else can't notice what is a nick and what is not.

Even wicketkeepers are unsighted by some things of times.

 

[Johnners]

Wasn't talking about that particular dismissal tbh, more in general. I can't say I have an opinion on the Dravid dismissal simply because i'm not, and never have been a wicket keeper so i really have no idea whether or not he could've known for certain if it hit bat or pad.

 

[Agent TBY]

Even wicketkeepers are unsighted by some things of times.

He caught it though, so I doubt he was unsighted.

And the bat was hiding behind the pad, which should've been clearly visible to him.

 

[Johnners]

Think putting exact percentages on it is pretty impractical TBH. More accurate would be to simply say "is sure it's out"; "think it might be out" and "know it's not". I'd have no issue with anyone appealing if they were certain a batsman had nicked\gloved one or if they thought they had. But I would if they saw bat pass ball with 10cm of daylight between. Disgraceful sportsmanship.

Obviously I'd agree with you there.

Using percentages was the best way to make my point though. If it's a marginal call, and theres a fair chance the ball hit the bat, then I can't see whats wrong with appealling, because in the end, thats all the fielders are doing, appealling to the umpire.

 

[Agent TBY]

Wasn't talking about that particular dismissal tbh, more in general. I can't say I have an opinion on the Dravid dismissal simply because i'm not, and never have been a wicket keeper so i really have no idea whether or not he could've known for certain if it hit bat or pad.

This thread is about Gilly and his appealing for wickets that were clearly, to him atleast, not out, not about appeals when you aren't sure if it's out or not.

 

[thealder]

While on appealing kumble appealed when in hit brad hoggs bat and went to cover for 2 and this was for an lbw

 

[Johnners]

He caught it though, so I doubt he was unsighted.

And the bat was hiding behind the pad, which should've been clearly visible to him.

If the 'keepers watching the ball though, wouldn't if be hard for him to ascertain (sp?) where exactly the bat was? Especially when the bat was put behind the pad so late as was the case in Dravids dismissal? (thats a genuine question btw)

 

[Agent TBY]

If the 'keepers watching the ball though, wouldn't if be hard for him to ascertain (sp?) where exactly the bat was? Especially when the bat was put behind the pad so late as was the case in Dravids dismissal? (thats a genuine question btw)

Well, I don't know the particulars, but it should've been easy for him for ascertain that the bat was nowhere near the ball.

 

[Majin]

If the 'keepers watching the ball though, wouldn't if be hard for him to ascertain (sp?) where exactly the bat was? Especially when the bat was put behind the pad so late as was the case in Dravids dismissal? (thats a genuine question btw)

If he was watching the ball intently then he would have known that the ball was nowhere near the bat.

 

[Johnners]

The ball hit the pad though, and the bat was right behind the pad. I assume it would be quite difficult for a 'keeper to know for certain if the bat was perfectly behind the pad, or if some of it was sticking out etc?

 

[netmatrix]

Poor thread. First of all, Yuvraj hit the bloody cover off the ball, of course he's gonna walk in that situation.

Hit the cover off it did he? Given the umpiring decisions gone before him in the match, and the attitude of the other players, he could've easily stood his ground. He walked.

The situation in 2003 was different as the umpire gave it not out yet Gilly walked...

So wait, Gilchrist waited for the umpire to say not out before walking did he? why did he wait around for? Fact is, both Gilchrist and Yuvraj went before the umpire raised his finger. i.e they both walked.

Now onto you criticising him for the appeals. Both of those incidents, live, looked very, very close and were worth a shout. It's easy to call him a cheat when we have the benefit of incredibly slow motion replays and can thus make our minds up based on that. Gilchrist doesn't have that benefit.

Have a look at the replay and the comments of some of the other posters. You don't need incredibly slow motion replays to see that that wasn't out, especially he would've been barely a meter from the incident.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=z125uLHDlUU (at Time: 2:50)

Plus, you can't single out Gilchrist over the Dravid thing because I reckon everyone around the bat new it wasn't out except for Mark Benson.

So? no one paints any of the other players out there as showing great sportsmanship as much as they do Gilchrist. But Gilchrist showed yesterday that he was no better than the rest.

I don't think him a man of dubious integrity

Initially, I didn't either. But this has brewing for a while and yesterday we saw two of the most blatant examples.

Think putting exact percentages on it is pretty impractical TBH. More accurate would be to simply say "is sure it's out"; "think it might be out" and "know it's not". I'd have no issue with anyone appealing if they were certain a batsman had nicked\gloved one or if they thought they had. But I would if they saw bat pass ball with 10cm of daylight between. Disgraceful sportsmanship.

I don't know if it was 10cm, but f you look at the video above, there is clear daylight between ball and bat/glove.

While on appealing kumble appealed when in hit brad hoggs bat and went to cover for 2 and this was for an lbw

So? this isn't about that. We never hear Kumble's name as someone who is better than the rest in terms of showing sportsmanship do we? Yet, we do hear Gilchrist's name in that regard. It's been clearly shown that he doesn't deserve that.