To walk or not to walk

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Statto

The umpires take
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...al/4034859.stm

I personally don't mind if people walk or not as long as they always do or always don't, just not when it suits. Perhaps if the umpires don't like it players would be best advised not to walk.

I think both you, and the BBC have misinterpreted what Bucknor meant to say. I think he was trying to say that Umpires shouldn't base their judgements on what different players do when an appeal is made against them - because in todays time, there is virtually only one player that will always walk, namely Gilchrist - others as he pointed out will walk on some occasions and not walk on others.

Walking, compulsive walking i.e., can only be a good thing for umpires. If Steve Bucknor had a discussion on this with David Shephard, Shephard would disagree, he appreciates walking, and was quoted as saying that he always has.

[Occasional Fan]

Can't speak for Statto, but, like you, Zainub, I do think the BBC has under-emphasised one of Steve Bucknor's comments. It's there in the report, but half way down and not in the bold-face type which claims - without quoting him - that Bucknor thinks walkers can cause a headache for umpires. Bucknor says "If he knows that he is out and he goes, that's good for the game". And I agree with him (and you).

[Ernest]

The one thing that has been shown up ith the new high tech stuff, big instand replay screens ect, is just how poor some umpires are, and I dont know that ir is only the present crop of umpires.

Dicky Bird was a well respected umpire, but would he have remained so, with todays high tech stuff, I would doubt it.

I think it is the umpires job to give a player out or not, individual players are not paid to umpire, and with all this big screen aid, and 3rd umpires, there should be no neen for players to walk.

It is a matter of breaks, marginal decissions have been given against every player, no one more so than Flintoff, he was dubbed as one of the unluckiest players, so if lady luck turns and gives him a break, it is just part of the circle.

If you are looking for uniform perfection, you will have to go the whole hog and say, ok any boarderline decissions, will be taken by the 3rd umpire scanning replays.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Can't speak for Statto, but, like you, Zainub, I do think the BBC has under-emphasised one of Steve Bucknor's comments. It's there in the report, but half way down and not in the bold-face type which claims - without quoting him - that Bucknor thinks walkers can cause a headache for umpires. Bucknor says "If he knows that he is out and he goes, that's good for the game". And I agree with him (and you).

I'm glad you agree, and glad that in general there are more people around who'd rather see batsmen walk then witness them standing their ground. I missed a previous discussion on this topic (here) but I see you stood your ground on walking even than, a quote worth seeing from that earlier discussion is:

Originally Posted by Mike Small

Your Say Poll:Question:Should all Australian batsmen follow Adam Gilchrist's lead and walk? No 47.4% (8229 votes) Yes 52.6% (9128 votes) the site excludes any warranty that these poll results were obtained using a reliable statistical sample.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

... I see you stood your ground on walking ...

Nice choice of words, Zainub! Seems funny, but I know what you mean!

[Zainub]

I disagree Erne, 90% of umpiring decesions are correct, with or without technology, umpiring standards right now are perfectly exceptable, its just that people are so obsessed with Hawk Eye and snikometers and what not that they repetedly forget that the men in the middle are STILL doing a very decent job considering they are humans. I doubt that if you completely removed umpires and kept robots in their places they would have been perfect either.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

I doubt that if you completely removed umpires and kept robots in their places they would have been perfect either.

This is my point, I would not want this to happen, but what I am saying players are individuals, and some will have had more than there share of the 10% of wrong decissions gone against then, being that they are only human, can anyone point a finger at them if they dont walk because the umpire has not raised his finger.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Ernest

This is my point, I would not want this to happen, but what I am saying players are individuals, and some will have had more than there share of the 10% of wrong decisions gone against then, being that they are only human, can anyone point a finger at them if they don’t walk because the umpire has not raised his finger.

I have for once never pointed fingers at those who don't walk, I respect every one's right not to, I'm just saying people should consider walking because I think those 10% wrong decisions will come down if more people are regularly walking, in the end its up to them. Your point of view looks much like the one put forward by Mukul Kesavan, in an article on the Cricket Info website, here that was first published in the November issue of Wisden Asia Cricket.

Originally Posted by Mukul Kesavan (Essayist and novelist based in New Delhi)

When livelihoods and careers turn on umpiring decisions, we should make sure that umpires have all the help they need to make the right ones. Once that happens, this unnecessary, re-invented distinction between gents (who walk) and pros (who don't) will disappear: everyone will walk because there won't be enough bad decisions to be evened out.

I disagree however, I don't see how a player can have enough of those 10% incorrect dismissals through out a passage of his career to satisfy the claim that his career would have been cut short had he walked.

[Statto]

Zainub,

I have re-read the article and although I see what you mean in some parts, I dont think that I have mis interpreted what was in the article, although if the BBC have then I will have followed this. While he seems in favour of walking:
If he knows that he is out and he goes, that's good for the game
Practically everything else he says is against it:

• Sometimes a batsman will only walk because he has already passed 100 ... knowing that he wouldn't walk when he was on zero.
• I have heard batsmen say, 'You owe me one' to umpires because they walked on a big score when the umpire was not going to rule them out
• I think umpires should make their decision when they see it

Maybe your interpretation of the article will be based on your interpretation of:
The umpire should not depend on someone who is a walker. Otherwise, that same walker may embarrass (him)."
I take this to mean that walkers are often unreliable and can put umpires off if they belive that the batsman will walk and this influences their decisions. I dont think this influence is good for the umpires or the game.
Hopefully this explains my views on the article.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Statto

I take this to mean that walkers are often unreliable and can put umpires off if they belive that the batsman will walk and this influences their decisions. I dont think this influence is good for the umpires or the game.
Hopefully this explains my views on the article.

I get your point, but I still beleive Bucknor's comments were adressed to fellow umpires rather than players, I think he was trying to tell umpires not to be influenced by walkers, because most of today's walkers, except Gilchirst, are selective walkers. I don't think he is discrouaging the type of walking Gilchirts does, I do agree though, that in part, people who walk on one occasion and don't on others will serve to confuse everyone, let alone the umpire.