To walk or not to walk

[Mike Small]

Originally Posted by Beny

Probebly not all that much... But Gilly is another story.

Gilchrist "walking" means nothing to me, the umpire would have given him out any way.

[Occasional Fan]

Surely the whole point of this thread, Mike, was to give recognition to those people who walk when they know they are out without waiting for the umpire's decision. Sure Gilchrist was out fair and square and would have been despatched, but the point is that he was enough of a gentleman effectively to "give himself out" (and not only on this occasion: to his credit, it is just part of the way he plays the game).

[Mike Small]

All this gentleman talk doesn't go down well at all with me. By my definations you're only a gentleman if you walk when the umpire hasn't given you out and you do that each and every single time an appeal has been made against you. Since that doesn't happen and is unlikely to happen given the competetivness of international cricket is increasing day by day I say all this "give credit to walkers" talk is down right non sense. At least in my opinion. If I were an umpire I'd take absolutely no notice of who walks or who doesn't because no one is consistent enough to trust their reactions on an appeal everytime. Would Gilchrist have walked had his team been nine down and it was a must win Ashes test match or the final of a world cup - I can bet a 1000 pounds or more on that, he wouldn't, no one would. So much for being a gentleman. YES, the game is supposed to be played in the right spirit but if being a down right hypocrite is the supposed gentlemanly way then I'm sorry I'd rather be called "cheat" stand my ground at all time than be called a gentleman and do selective walking as it were.

[Rachael]

To be fair.. Gilchrist has long had a reputation not only as one of the most likeable guys in the game but also as one of the most sporting: I think he's got a balanced enough view of priorities to realise that the game is just a game.. and that some things matter much, much more than winning and losing.

In these days of video analysis it makes no sense to walk except when it matters.. because you'll get found out and end up with no positive reputation whatsoever: these days the choice realy is to walk on EVERY occasion or to STAY on every occasion.

I wouldn't go as far as to accuse the Athertons of this world of betraying the spirit of the game.. but I do know how I prefer to see the game played.

ps. It's not time to consider it YET (as I think the technology needs more work) but I'd like to see a "sin bin" system.. where anyone asked a straight question by an umpire (like "did it carry" or "did that hit the bat".. HAS to give a straight answer.. and anyone deemed by a panel of umpires (after the match) to have knowingly attempt to deceive the umpire would get a 6-12 month ban and cost the side the game. Not going to happen in a hurry.. but I could see it being in place by the end of the decade.

[Occasional Fan]

I think that's a point which others have also brought up, Mike. But I don't think it's at all fair on Gilchrist to use him as your hypothetical example. Of course no-one knows if he would have walked if this had been the ninth wicket in the deciding Ashes game: the situation hasn't arisen. And I'm not about to nominate Gilchrist for sainthood! But I do think that, of all the people playing international cricket today, the chances of him walking in those circumstances are probably higher than for anyone else I can think of.

Now, as an umpire, you say you would not be influenced by who walks and who doesn't. And that is great: as an umpire you absolutely should not be. If the umpire is not influenced by who is at the crease, then selective walking in order to gain an advantage based on reputation will not work. If you, the umpire, are influenced by the reputation of the man at the crease (or of the man claiming the catch for that matter), you are putting the game at risk. Bottom line: as long as we have straight and impartial umpires, the walkers, selective or otherwise, will not dictate the outcome of any game. I maintain my view that we should doff our hats to the walkers - and blow raspberries at the loafers who know they are out but still stand their ground.

[Mike Small]

Originally Posted by Rachael

To be fair.. Gilchrist has long had a reputation not only as one of the most likeable guys in the game but also as one of the most sporting: I think he's got a balanced enough view of priorities to realise that the game is just a game.. and that some things matter much, much more than winning and losing.

Well, that may be right, but how many other people do that? In fact I'm not even sure if for Gilchrist alone winning doesn't matter always, that's why I'm against tagging someone as sporting. Yes, he walks, why not end it at there, perhaps just at the most say "you walk, good for you" and move on. Why call him sporting , gentleman , and bring out all poetic cliches from the previous centuries and laud him as the noblest sole on the planet - that is what principally winds me up.

Originally Posted by Rachael

ps. It's not time to consider it YET (as I think the technology needs more work) but I'd like to see a "sin bin" system.. where anyone asked a straight question by an umpire (like "did it carry" or "did that hit the bat".. HAS to give a straight answer.. and anyone deemed by a panel of umpires (after the match) to have knowingly attempt to deceive the umpire would get a 6-12 month ban and cost the side the game. Not going to happen in a hurry.. but I could see it being in place by the end of the decade.

I was under the impression that a sin bin system as you call it already exists to some extent, unoficially though. Don't umpires ask fielders on the boundary if there is ever a case of deciding if it was a four or a six or sometimes deciding if it was a four or had the ball been stopped without the fielder's body coming in contact with the rope at the time of the fielder stopping the ball? I think they mostly do. As a matter of fact very recently I saw an umpires ask a player if he had caught the ball cleanly and the fielders him self said he wasn't sure so they referred it to the tv umpire and it was eventually adjudged not out.

In any case I would say a imposing a ban of 6 months would be too much, I'd rather impose a 5-10 match ban or fine him his entire match fee for that particular game if the issue wasn't that serious.

[Beny]

I think we should remember something. The Umpires are only there because the players themselves can't be trusted to make the dicision.

[Mike Small]

Well, no one is disputing that Beny, that punishment would be the result of "misleading" the umpires - no one actually sugested you would be penalised had someone said "I'm not sure" or something on those lines, but if you claim a dismissal or stand your ground when you are sure about it not being justified it's only then when you'll be in trouble. In all cases this theory would apply only when an umpire officially asks a player for his thoughts, otherwise a player if not asked should not be penalised for standing his ground or appealing for a dismissal.

For instance ... Donald appealed for a caught behind and if Mike Atherton was asked if he actually hit the ball and he said no despite knowing he did hit it then he'd be fined. But if the umpire takes it upon him self to make a decesion and does not ask Atherton then Atherton would be safe from any banes or fines.

[R W S]

"I will not walk. The umpire has a job to do, I will wait for his decision."
A steadfast Mohammad Kaif stands his ground on the issue of marching orders.

[Beny]

Originally Posted by R W S 22422

"I will not walk. The umpire has a job to do, I will wait for his decision."
A steadfast Mohammad Kaif stands his ground on the issue of marching orders.

If I was playing for India I would too.