The Fine Line: Would You Walk?

[Richard]

But what if the batsman walks off without anyone consulting the Umpire?
Is it recorded as "retired"?
Or does the John Jameson Law 43 apply?

 

[TT Boy]

Does the Umpire have to give you out if you nick it to third-slip and you stand there?

Well no one else is going to.

 

[adharcric]

Let the umpires do their job. By walking, one might make the match unfair if the opposition isn't as "upright" and don't decide to walk when they are out but not declared so. In this way, being "upright" might actually hurt your chances in a match. Umpires give guys out when they're not out, but they don't have a chance to stay at the crease then ... because the umpire's word is the ultimate authority. Similarly, the umpire's word should remain the ultimate authority in this case as well, simply to keep the game balanced.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Okay. That went a bit too fast. Can you please run that past me one more time ?

Nah. You're a clever kid. I think you know what I mean.

A batsman not walking is engaging in no active deception.

 

[Goughy]

How, incidentally, do you differentiate between an "obvious" nick and a "non-obvious" one? Does the Umpire have to give you out if you nick it to third-slip and you stand there?

As TT points out, of course. If he does not give me out then I am not out. Could have come off my forearm.

There is a process defined within the laws of cricket. It would serve us all to keep the game simple by actually following them rather than people applying their own morals and ethics to a situation.

1. Ball is bowled
2. Appeal or no appeal
3. Was ball a no-ball?
4. If not a no-ball and there was an appeal the umpire considers the evidence
5. Gives out or not out
6. If out walk to pavilion, if given not-out carry on batting.

It is a very simple process that people are really over complicating and the batsman is no part off it.

 

[Smudge]

It's nothing of the kind. The batsman is under no obligation to incriminate himself. Not walking only enters the realm of sharp practice if it's accompanied by some theatrics like, say, looking at one's bat to suggest an inside edge where there wasn't one on an LBW shout.

You could draw a similar comparison to rugby. You may knock a ball on, know full well that you've done so, yet until the referee's whistle blows, it's play on.

 

[Perm]

You could draw a similar comparison to rugby. You may knock a ball on, know full well that you've done so, yet until the referee's whistle blows, it's play on.

But from my experiences in rugby, if you do knock the ball on whilst attempting to score a try and you tell the referee "I knocked it on sir", but he thinks it is a try he will always award the try. I remember something similar happening with Zinzan Brooke and the mighty Southland rugby team challenging Auckland for the Ranfurly Shield. Zinzan wa awarded a try that won the game for Auckland and latter admitted he knocked the ball on, if he had've indicated to the referee that he knocked it on I doubt whether he would've changed his mind.

Oh and yes, I would walk in any and every situation. As much as I love winning and would do almost anything to do so, I would not blatantly lie to myself and the other players. Adam Gilchrist has had a large effect on my mindset.

However I would not recall the batsmen or tell the umpire that he got the call wrong because it was his decision and the players should accept that.

 

[kvemuri]

Surely every cricket aficionado has witnessed or experienced an instance of the umpire getting a call wrong.

As a batsman, you edge the ball and are caught by the keeper but the umpire doesn't signal anything. Keeping the circumstances of the match in mind, do you stay or walk?

On the other hand, a batsman is adjudged LBW but it's obvious to the fielding side that bat was involved. As the captain of the fielding side, do you bring the batsman back or take the gift from the umpire? Do you follow the path of "integrity" even if you're confident that the opposition wouldn't do the same when it was your turn to bat?

Just wondering what your stances are on this issue.

Hmm..no and no on both instances.

 

[Smudge]

But from my experiences in rugby, if you do knock the ball on whilst attempting to score a try and you tell the referee "I knocked it on sir", but he thinks it is a try he will always award the try. I remember something similar happening with Zinzan Brooke and the mighty Southland rugby team challenging Auckland for the Ranfurly Shield. Zinzan wa awarded a try that won the game for Auckland and latter admitted he knocked the ball on, if he had've indicated to the referee that he knocked it on I doubt whether he would've changed his mind.

Another depressed Southland fan?

 

[Goughy]

On the other hand, a batsman is adjudged LBW but it's obvious to the fielding side that bat was involved. As the captain of the fielding side, do you bring the batsman back or take the gift from the umpire? Do you follow the path of "integrity" even if you're confident that the opposition wouldn't do the same when it was your turn to bat?

If its hit the bat why would you appeal?
I would automatically recind the appeal I or any other teammate made thereby making the batsman not out.

As stated in earlier posts I find it very difficult to lie and appealing when you know a batsman is not out is lying. Also it is a very different situation to the batsman not walking. I have already mentioned earlier that the bowler and fielding team are part of the wicket-taking process, by nature of having to appeal, but the batsman is not.

Excessive appealing is a far greater crime than not walking can ever be.

 

[Langeveldt]

I never walk, and I hate people who walk when the pressure isnt on, claim some moral high ground, and then get into a tight situation, nick one, and stand where they are..

The way I look at it, if I get a guy out and he doesn't walk, then I'm the fool.. Especially if my team loses..

 

[C_C]

Nah. You're a clever kid. I think you know what I mean.

A batsman not walking is engaging in no active deception.

Oh okay. so you are saying that it is okay if the batsman stood his ground after nicking one playing a forward defensive staring away at the pitch but its not okay for the batsman to point to his pads in the same situation.

While i agree that the latter is more blatant, i still think that the whole notion of the '5th ammendment' and ' a person is not compelled to do something to incriminate themselves' is not justifiable. i think its a question of integrity and people who refuse to walk but will appeal for anything lack integrity.
Its the 'end justifies the means' attitude, which is a slippery slope indeed.

 

[Perm]

Another depressed Southland fan?

You know it Voltman. We almost had it off Auckland a couple of years ago too but Apanui's conversion hit the post

 

[Smudge]

You know it Voltman. We almost had it off Auckland a couple of years ago too but Apanui's conversion hit the post

That's what you get for using a University A cast-off at 10... even Southlanders don't rate him.


Anyway... back on topic.

 

[howardj]

You can't walk sometimes and not walk other times... that's kind of missing the point.

In my experience, most people who walk are like that though - they're not unconditional walkers. They'll walk when it suits them.

 

[adharcric]

If its hit the bat why would you appeal?
I would automatically recind the appeal I or any other teammate made thereby making the batsman not out.

As stated in earlier posts I find it very difficult to lie and appealing when you know a batsman is not out is lying. Also it is a very different situation to the batsman not walking. I have already mentioned earlier that the bowler and fielding team are part of the wicket-taking process, by nature of having to appeal, but the batsman is not.

Excessive appealing is a far greater crime than not walking can ever be.

Well yeah, that wasn't such a great example. I actually brought it up because something like that happened in a match I played in a few weeks ago.

We were fielding and apparently had the opposition captain out LBW and the main umpire called it. The batsman knew it was bat-first and the stupid main umpire later claimed that he knew it too. So the main guy consulted the square leg umpire (by our league rules, main umpire shouldnt consult leg umpire regarding lbw/edge/etc decisions) about something and the batsman said he shouldn't be out and finally the guy changed his decision to not out. So my captain didn't want to give the guy another chance because we get so many bad decisions from umpires too and the finger had already been raised. Still, we couldn't do much and eventually had to accept the revised decision, albeit perhaps the correct one. That's what triggered that example.

EDIT: I dropped that same batsman at gully a few overs later.

 

[quick4mindia]

Surely every cricket aficionado has witnessed or experienced an instance of the umpire getting a call wrong.

As a batsman, you edge the ball and are caught by the keeper but the umpire doesn't signal anything. Keeping the circumstances of the match in mind, do you stay or walk?

On the other hand, a batsman is adjudged LBW but it's obvious to the fielding side that bat was involved. As the captain of the fielding side, do you bring the batsman back or take the gift from the umpire? Do you follow the path of "integrity" even if you're confident that the opposition wouldn't do the same when it was your turn to bat?

Just wondering what your stances are on this issue.

Clone Simon Taufel and don't ever fall into such situations

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I don't know about the others but I am not taking any moral high ground, as I said I have no problem with non-walkers and do not see myself better than them. Just that for me personally I try to apply honesty, honour and the gentlemanly code in everything (I'm by no means perfect, swear like billio) and I see no reason why cricket should be exempt. Thinking oneself better than someone who mearly awaits a decision is tantamount to snobbery, which in itself is detestable IMO. As for the team ethic well, they can go and find another batsman if they have a problem with it.

I haven't played a lot of cricket to be fair, and the stakes haven't been particularly high, but I reckon it's about 50-50 between the walker and the waiter in my experience.

 

[benchmark00]

I'd cut off my leg before I walk.

 

[wpdavid]

Purely hypothetical in my case - the state of the stumps rarely left much room for debate.