Walking

[adharcric]

Here's an older thread about the same topic.

 

[Laurrz]

i dont understand .. if it is right or not

if a batsman wants to walk

then its fine... there is no, yes or no answer

 

[Stumped]

it seems a bit silly only walking on a certain score, but if thats the way you go about thats your choice

 

[Perm]

Couldn't agree more mate. If you are a walker then you should walk, the situation of the game or your score shouldn't influence your decision.

 

[James90]

The third poll option is the only one that is wrong IMO. If you're given not out but you are out and should therefore end your innings then walk. It doesn't make any sense to me.

I used to walk back in the day, then I got like fifteen dodgy decisions in the space of two years. Since then I count my blessing and figure that I'll take what I can. Recently I got a regulation edge playing a forward defensive shot. The umpire was unmoved and I ended up with eleven opposition players throwing tantrums calling me a "cheat" and a "loser" which IMO is much more immoral than standing your ground.

I like adharcric's statement that the opposition captain won't reinstate you if you get a dodgy decision so why walk.

 

[Craig]

I don't like it when a non-walker demands somebody walk though when they thought they were not out and were given that. The best example I can give would be Michael Vaughan at Adelaide Oval 02/03 where he scored 177 and on 19 there was that controversial non-catch off the bowling of Bichel and Langer who insisted he walk IIRC when Langer himself never walks.

Anyway what is so wrong with being a slective walker? Just because you do something once there is no rule to suggest you have do it again. It's like an old example, just because something is repeated a 1000 times doesn't mean it has to be repeated 1001 times.

 

[Perm]

The problem I have with selective walkers is that they take away all the honour if they only walk when they know their team is going to win and they would blatantly stay in if they thought that their team could lose. I would lose respect for anybody that did that, although I wouldn't if the person never walked at all in his life. But say if Gilly needed to bat with McGrath to save the test and he edged one and didn't walk then I would lose respect for him.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm a non-walker but being, ah, technically limited as a batsman it's very rarely an issue.

As others have suggested walking is admirable, but not something I think one could demand of a player. At the end of the day it's the umpires perogative to give decisions.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'll just copy and paste the only answer I ever give to this:

"I, as a batsman, will walk when I know I'm out if you, as bowler, don't appeal when you know I'm not out."

 

[silentstriker]

I'll just copy and paste the only answer I ever give to this:

"I, as a batsman, will walk when I know I'm out if you, as bowler, don't appeal when you know I'm not out."

Exactly.

 

[aussie tragic]

I'll just copy and paste the only answer I ever give to this:

"I, as a batsman, will walk when I know I'm out if you, as bowler, don't appeal when you know I'm not out."

Please paste this on Gilchrist's forehead ....he'll walk anyway, but maybe it'll stop some appealing....

 

[The Baconator]

Never been in a situation where I could walk really, so I don't really know what I'd do. I think I've posted before that I would but I think now I probably wouldn't.

 

[Jono]

Just thought i'd get ur thoughts on walking. Adam Gilchrist is known as a big walker when he is out he knows it. But i believe this again is wrong. If the umpire wsays not out and you walk i believe that shouldnt be the bowlers wicket maybe counted as you retiring. What are your views on this?

I was actually thinking that a while back when Gilly walked in India.

If the umpire says not out, but the player walks out, is it really a 'wicket' in the strictest term? Or is the batsman just technically retiring, because he wasn't given out by the official umpire.

 

[Stumped]

I was actually thinking that a while back when Gilly walked in India.

If the umpire says not out, but the player walks out, is it really a 'wicket' in the strictest term? Or is the batsman just technically retiring, because he wasn't given out by the official umpire.

yer i wonder the same things sometimes....... i really think it should be counted as retireing but i have no say in the rules

 

[Josh]

I've walked on about 3 or 4 occasions. Naturally, because of this, now when I'm given out when I clearly am not, I am even more dirty.

 

[James90]

yer i wonder the same things sometimes....... i really think it should be counted as retireing but i have no say in the rules

Na it shouldn't...the bowler deserves credit for dismissing the batsmen (even though the batsmen technically dismissed himself)

 

[Stumped]

Na it shouldn't...the bowler deserves credit for dismissing the batsmen (even though the batsmen technically dismissed himself)

But really the umpire has already said not out so it cant be given as out if the umpire has said not out and he had not changed his decision...but thats my opinion and we are all intitled to one