Just a follow on from the thread below about poor decisions.............

Mention was made of a game in the 1999 World Cup of a batsman being given out caught when the ball clearly bounced about a foot or more away from the bat after hitting it. Looking at this and at the dismissal of Andre Botha a few days ago, clearly they were poor decisions but to what extent do we consider the conduct of the fielding side ? The Botha appeal was clearly ridiculous and the assumption that Pakistan were trying it on isn't a totally unfair one. There's clearly an element of gamesmanship in this (if not cheating) and I feel it's time it was stamped out. We get players fined every so often for over-appealing but it never goes far enough. Suppose in the case of the Ireland/Pakistan game, when Botha was batting, the 3rd umpire was able to intervene, reverse the decision and fine Pakistan, say, 10 runs (with penalties going up for subsequent trangressions)................wouldn't that put a halt to some of the more, shall we say, optimistic appealers in the game ? If nothing else, such behaviour goes against the Spirit of the Game, which the ICC keeps telling us it is so keen on upholding (hah !!).

Thoughts ?

After the decision in the PAK/IRE game, the guy who caught it, a few minutes later went up to the umpire and actually questioned him about the decision. The umpire nodded to him and confirmed there was bat involved.

The fact they appealed and the umpire gave it, actually means that something on the field at that time led to the decision. Who knows, maybe 2 noises were heard leading both fielders and umpire to come to that decision. Remember, they only get to see it once.

In addition, all teams appeal optimistically and when you are defending a low score vs Ireland, even more so.

The blame in this case lies with the umpire.

Just because a decision is quite clearly NOT OUT doesn't mean it is not worth appealing.

Who degree seperates a "cheating" appeal and a reasonable one?

There is no need to be hasty like Hair with the awarding of penalty runs.

By and large, teams only appeal when there is a good chance of a wicket being taken and it is then up to the umpire to say yay or nay.

I don't think there is a need to make any changes based on one freak incident.

If you bring that in, all you do is cause more controversy because teams will be less likely to on tight marginal decisions.

The last time WI toured AUS, over the 3 tests, WI were at the mercy of a series of very poor decisions. So ppor they wrote to the ICC who wrote back and apologised that the level of umpiring was not satisfactory.

On one instance Sarwan, the only bowler found NOT to bend his elbow, had Hayden caught at first slip after Hayden edged onto the keeper's leg.

Clear thick edge, not a nick. WI appealed. Not out. To their credit, after a second of two of bewilderment, they carried on with no fuss.

In that case, the situation is reversed and the blame lies with the umpire. So it should also be when people are given out.

I remember that series. The WI were getting hammered -but every time the Aussies appealed the finger went up, whenever the Windies appealed - not out.

__________________
Mark.

It is not easy to understand the mind set of a fielder when he appeals for close decisions, particularly the wicket-keeper. If he believes that the batsman might have been out - be it an lbw or caught behind - he has to ask the question, which is really what an "appeal" is. There are occasions where the fielder cannot be certain himself and so he appeals to the umpire by shouting "How's that?"----effectively asking if that was out. The umpire then makes the decision based on his observation of the event...and where appropriate the 'third umpire'. That is how it is supposed to work, in theory anyway.

From the point of view of the fielding side, appeals can be classified into 3 groups:

• An appeal where the bowler and fielder(s) appeal because the batsman is clearly out, at least in their opinion. Such appeals are justified even if TV replays show otherwise. It is up to the umpire to use the available technology.
• An appeal where the bowler/fielder(s) are not certain, but think that there is a good chance that the batsman is out. All lbw decisions come in this category, as do close run outs etc. Almost always such appeals are instinctive - like the bowler going up whenever the batsman is rapped on the pad. They have to ask the question to be sure.
• An appeal where the fielder clearly knows that the batsman is not out - like the catch off the turf or ball off the pad. That is unsporting and IMO should be severely penalised afterwards.

This saddens me, because if you have to break (or bend) the rules to win, surely the win is meaningless?

What really annoys me is when fielders from fine leg or square leg appeal for LBW's or catches where they cant have a clue what has happened. This IMO is just as bad as cheating.

__________________
Mark.

That might be a bit harsh. The fine leg fielder goes up with the bowler and wicket keeper on herd instinct, no more. He'll know full well that his appeal will mean very little to the eventual decision. It is just a team thing.

Hows that (sorry) harsh? If you appeal from fine leg there no way you know if the batters out. How is that different from appealing at first slip when you know he hasnt nicked it?

They are both the same in my book, you are appealing when you are not certain that the batter is out.

__________________
Mark.

Well, it is a bit hard to explain. As I said, we cannot read the mindset of the appealer at the time. But it seems to me that in most instances the fine-leg fielder appealing for lbw is simply doing it as a knee-jerk reaction to the close-in colleagues, no more. It would be very obvious to all concerned that he could not be doing anything else.

The 'nick' (or lack of it) is more difficult. If there has not been a nick, the bowler, wicket-keeper or close-in fielder might not actually be sure and so ask the question to the umpire. Remember that the fielding side does not have the benefit of slow-motion replays any more than the umpire has; but they know that the official has the option of referring the matter "upstairs". That is the reason why there are so many appeals these days.

But in cases where a fielder has grabbed the ball off the ground and claimed a catch is clear cheating. The fielder will obviously be aware of what he has done and so any sort of appeal is not justified. If caught, harsh and humiliating penalties should be given.

Likewise, I think batsmen who do not 'walk' after nicking the ball and escaping the umpires attention are cheating, as do those that pretend that they did nick it in an lbw appeal. They too deserve to be reprimanded.