07 Jan 08
Originally posted by CrowleyKnows/thinks - pretty much the same thing in this context. And the bit that you cut out of my text wasn't quite what I was saying. I was saying that if a batsman is meant to walk (ie. give himself out) then a bowler should have a right to give a batsman out for LBWs. But my viewpoint is that it's always an umpires job to adjudicate. That's what happens in all other sports.
That's not what anyone is saying.
If a batsman KNOWS he hit it and a catch is claimed - he should walk, otherwise he can not be a respected sportsman in my eyes.
So tell me.. if a batsman is given out when he KNOWS he did NOT hit it, does he have the right to stay?
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by Red NightCricket has (or at least had) a different tradition. Walking is common, although not as common as it used to be. I always walk, but I'm not exactly playing it professionally.
Of course they should wait until the umpire makes his decision, umpires don't like to be shown up.
I don't know how many times I have seen a batter head to first for a walk and then have the pitch called a strike.
I think ideally, I prefer batsmen to walk, but a lot work on the principle that they will incorrectly be given out some of the time, so if they are incorrectly given not out occasionally it evens it out.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by AussieGThat doesn't follow at all. What would follow from the assumption that a batsman should give himself out is that a bowler should no-ball himself. But the notion that a bowler should LBW the batsman is ridiculous.
I was saying that if a batsman is meant to walk (ie. give himself out) then a bowler should have a right to give a batsman out for LBWs.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by StarrmanI agree with you to a small degree, but I want an appeal system to be implemented.
Personally I think getting every decision right is pointless. If that was the aim we'd have to monitor every foot placement and bowler's arm for no-balls, every run-out would have to go to the third umpire, every catch, field by the boundary and lbw would have to be referred. The game would become a logistic exercise and lose all its character.
If the fielding side should be able to appeal to a 3rd umpire for a decision when they KNOW a batsman is out and a batsman should be able to appeal a decision if he KNOWS he is NOT out.
This should take out some very contentious decisions out of the game and shouldn't slow it down any discernible degree.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by StarrmanYes, fair enough - I do see your point there. I did mess that one up. I did have a viewpoint in my mind which didn't come out right. 😳
That doesn't follow at all. What would follow from the assumption that a batsman should give himself out is that a bowler should no-ball himself. But the notion that a bowler should LBW the batsman is ridiculous.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by CrowleyShouldn't slow the game down? If you have to go to the 3rd umpire each time there is a close call, it would be slowed down quite a bit. Players could easily abuse this system and the game could come to a virtual standstill - there would have to be a limit.
I agree with you to a small degree, but I want an appeal system to be implemented.
If the fielding side should be able to appeal to a 3rd umpire for a decision when they KNOW a batsman is out and a batsman should be able to appeal a decision if he KNOWS he is NOT out.
This should take out some very contentious decisions out of the game and shouldn't slow it down any discernible degree.
OK.. instead of your appeals system, why not just umpire the game from the 3rd umpires chair and do without the umpires in the middle? I mean, if everything is to be referred upstairs, the umpires in the middle are of no use.
The umpires, for the most part, do a very good job - there will always be mistakes, but that is part of the character of the game. Universally though, there is very little contraversy.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by AussieGwhen a batsman walks, he is making a decision AGAINST himself and his team. a bowler giving a batsman out for lbw would be giving a decision FOR himself and his team. That's the difference. If someone is giving a decision against themselves you have to figure that they're being honest. But not in the other case. We all know that some so-called sportsmen will take anything they can get away with - presumably they don't care about their personal reputation for integrity. Personally, I think batsmen should do the right thing and walk, and if they won't, let's get the technology into place. The rules of cricket say that if you hit the ball in the air, and it's a valid delivery, and it gets caught, then you're out. If you know you're out, then walk.
Knows/thinks - pretty much the same thing in this context. And the bit that you cut out of my text wasn't quite what I was saying. I was saying that if a batsman is meant to walk (ie. give himself out) then a bowler should have a right to give a batsman out for LBWs. But my viewpoint is that it's always an umpires job to adjudicate. That's what happens in ...[text shortened]... .. if a batsman is given out when he KNOWS he did NOT hit it, does he have the right to stay?
07 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AussieGExactly. Overall they get 90% decisions right, this why my suggestions won't slow the game down PLUS there will be no more controversy.
The umpires, for the most part, do a very good job - there will always be mistakes, but that is part of the character of the game. Universally though, there is very little contraversy.
It's win win.
Do you really believe that professional, international cricket sides will abuse a system like that? I don't think so.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyRight, and because of the pressures these players face these days in the professional era, walking is becoming very scarce indeed.
The rules of cricket say that if you hit the ball in the air, and it's a valid delivery, and it gets caught, then you're out. If you know you're out, then walk.
Let's put the measures in place to make every player who is out, take the long walk to the showers.
09 Jan 08
Everyone who has ever played or watched snooker will know that a player will always call a foul against himself (for feathering the ball) even when the referee doesn't see it. Why the difference to other sports? There is also the example of golf where players are expected to be honest. 'Cheating' is rife in most sports. This is just a reflection on the general decline in morality in society.
09 Jan 08
Originally posted by mtthwAha! But this comes back to my suggestion again.
On a related note, in my opinion a far bigger problem that batsmen who don't walk is bowlers and fielders who appeal when they know it is not out.
If the fielding team knows they will get the right decision, all that useless appealing will stop.
10 Jan 08
Originally posted by CrowleyYes, I think they would.
Do you really believe that professional, international cricket sides will abuse a system like that? I don't think so.
How can you define that a player "knows"?? (as you previously mentioned) In the height of a sporting battle, and especially at the elite/professional level, players are very intense, driven, focused and possess a very strong desire to win. Not to mention the stakes at hand. Given all this, when there's a chance, or half a chance, to get a batsman out, they are going to appeal like crazy.. whether they really "know" the batsman is out or if it's a "maybe". Their competitiveness, intensity and focus can often blind them to what is reality. So to actually "know" for sure is very questionable. (I mainly refer to the closer calls here - we all know a thick edge is obviously out)
I'm sure they don't care how certain they are if the batsman is out or not. If given not out, why wouldn't they appeal and go to the 3rd umpire?? I mean, if there is half a chance to get the batsman out, isn't it worth a shot? What have they got to lose?
So yes, there could be many appeals being referred thus slowing the game down.
