To walk or not to walk

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Problem here is the umpire has a better view than a batsman, yes a batsman knows if he has edged it or not, but facing a bowler of say Harmisons pace, how could a batsman facing the wrong way, would know if a slip had caught it cleanly.

If he hasn't seen it, he obviously cannot tell, and relies on the umpire.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Here's a thought - should the umpire be able to ask the batsman whether they hit it?

Yup.. and where subsequent Tv replays throw doubt on what the batsman said the matter should be put before a disciplinary committee.

Likewise... referee's should be able to ask footballers if they made the last touch before the ball went out. Sadly, I suspect the chances of getting the reprobates of the soccer world to co-operate would be rather lower than the chances of getting cricketers to do the decent thing.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Lemming

If he hasn't seen it, he obviously cannot tell, and relies on the umpire.

True but there is pressure for a batsman to walk, players standing hands on hips, looking to the sky, accusing without saying.

I am saying it is near impossible for a player to tell if he has snicked the ball, and also know if the ball carried.

I have seen players out after this sort of appealing, a simple solution if the square leg umpire can't tell, then a batsman can't, so maybe walking should not be allowed.

[Lemming]

But often, Ern, a player will know if the ball is going to keep low or not or whether it will go at a good height. I think a batsman usually does have the time to turn his head. The faster the bowler, the farther back the keeper and slips will be standing. In the time taken for the ball to travel to the keeper from an edge there is enough time for the keeper to react and attempt a catch, therefore enough time for a batsman to have a little peak, I suspect.

[Trescothick]

Originally Posted by Lemming

therefore enough time for a batsman to have a little peak, I suspect.

Yep whenever they edge it they turn around and see in time whether it has been caught its instinctive. Plus they wanna know if they can make a run in time if the slips miss it so they're always gonna watch

[Ernest]

Yep they do turn their heads, but the problem is as I see it, is the ball that goes to the fielder very low, I have heard commentators say "He can't be sure if he caught it or not", it's asking a lot of a batsman in those conditions to be able to tell wheather a ball piched a couple of inches in front of the fielder or not.

And then we have the odd fielder that appeals for everything, and strong appeals at that, if the batsman believes him and walks, he is out, I know it happens the other way round.

What I am saying is. the square leg umpire should be able to tell the pitch of the ball, but this never seems to be mentioned.

If a batsman knows he is out, he should say that to the umpire, and the umpire decides, in case he is wrong.

The best bet like it or not, and I am not that keen, in such hop desputes use TV replays, that way no one can complain.

The big screen has nade it worse, because mistakes are shown up, players made to look like cheats, so we either get rid of these big replay screens, or use them.

[Trescothick]

I say we leave 95% of decisions to umpires.. So what if they make mistakes it usually evens out. If the batsmen wants to walk he can, but no pressure to and no talk of bad sportsmanship. We should only use TV replays for runs outs otherwise just trust the umpires eye. I like it that way

[Rachael]

The responsibility of the batsman is purely with respect to the question of "did I hit it". It's up to the fielder to decide if he's confident enough to claim the catch.

If the fielder says he caught it... and you think you nicked it... then you walk... even if you think the claim to the catch was suspect: it's the fielder's call... and no business whatsoever of the batsman's.

[Lemming]

When a catch is ambiguous, then it is definitely not up to the batsman if he is out or not. Indeed it is difficult even for the fielder I believe to decide if the batsman is out or not.

The square-leg umpire would also find it difficult, I think, because the ball usually pitches only half an inch or so in front of the hands of the fielder in the "difficult to call" catches.

I'm not too sure I can think of a solution, it is the technology that has made a problem, but even TV replays can't show whether a ball has touched the ground or not and solve the problem. Sometimes the ball could even just brush a blade of grass before being caught, in theory the batsman should not be given out in that case.

Whenever I've been at a test match, TV replays of ambiguous decisions are restricted to one real-time replay. This avoids giving the crowd something to boo about. We only see what the third-umpire does at home.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

If the fielder says he caught it... and you think you nicked it... then you walk... even if you think the claim to the catch was suspect: it's the fielder's call... and no business whatsoever of the batsman's.

This the problem "think", I don't think you should walk on just thinking you are out, I think it should left to the umpire, or replays, personaly Rachael, I would get rid of the screens.

I would rather not use replays Tres, but if we don't want that, we should get rid of the tell all screens IMHO.

Like Lemming has pointed out, real time replays only should be shown, but this this does not help in the case of catches, because nothing is conclusive, and the big screen just highlights this.