Not "walking" = cheating (?)

[Owzat]

I've submitted this as a query to the MCC, but essentially I can't see how I'm wrong.

1. Out Caught

The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-32-caught-1/

Where does it say the umpire has to give that out??!?! This common practice of standing your ground is cheating, or at the very least not in the "spirit of cricket"

This would remind players of their responsibility for ensuring that cricket is always played in a truly sportsmanlike manner.

I know sport is competitive, blah blah blah, but frankly this whole not "walking" thing has gone on too long and the ICC/MCC should do something about it. Personally I'd zero any runs that batsman scored in the innings, or maybe even scored while he was at the crease, fine and ban him.

I'm anticipating a lot of people accepting that batsmen don't walk, but there is no way you can argue it is right. They hit the ball, it was caught, they know they should be given out, they effectively con the umpire into thinking they didn't hit it. It's cheating, no matter how you try and dress it up.

People try to bring the umpire into the equation, but umpires make mistakes and if you don't walk you're trying to force the umpire to make a mistake, or simply gain another "life" at the crease. You wouldn't like it if you were the bowler, robbed of a wicket, England (or whoever) could easily dig in once all the fielding reviews have been used up (flawed system as I often point out ) and gain an unfair advantage. Sure the aussies shouldn't have used up their reviews, but wrong is wrong.

Out the cheats, could be a campaign logo.

 

[vaibhavtewatia]

^^Completely agree. Although, whatever has happened cannot be reverted, but it is a shame that Broad didn't walk, more shameful is the way in which the members here are defending his actions in the other thread!

The definition

Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination

Comparing it with the Ramdin incident, is simply determining the level of cheating. The level, would simply tell the distinct way one should be punished. But at the end of the day, both the incidents are equally immoral. Shameful!

 

[hawkeye]

Is this because it was so obvious why this is attracting so much attention. Batsmen have stood their ground when they know they are out since cricket has been played. Whats the difference with a feint edge and an obvious one?

To Walk Or Not To Walk

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

see though, the rule you've quoted misses a bit because it's been paraphrased.


"The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground."

AND an appeal is made.

1. Umpire not to give batsman out without an appeal

Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made. Note, however, the provisions of 7 below.

for me, it's the role the fielding team takes that changes the interpretation of this law. A batsman can strike the ball and no appeal be made and he's in, or even an appeal can be withdrawn. So there is an agreement going on, the umpire isn't strictly under orders to enforce the rules of an out, he's there to agree with the fielding team that a batsman has got himself out.

it's up to the fielders to ask the question and the umpire to decide. of course, a batsman may walk, but it doesn't say anywhere that a batsman should ask the umpire to give him out, it only says he has the option to do so.

(I probably would have stuck philosophy out at uni if I'd realised back then I could have just written all my essays on semantics on cricket)

 

[SaiSrini]

Wonder why the Aussies are making such a big fuss about it. Did Symonds walk after the whole world heard the edge off his bat to an Ishant Sharma delivery during that infamous Sydney test in 2007/08? Did Ricky Ponting walk after he flicked Saurav Ganguly down the leg side into the hands of MS Dhoni in that same test match? WTBF are the Aussies on about???? Michael Clarke claimed a catch in that same game even though replays clearly showed he had grassed it. And the Aussies have the B guts to talk about sportsmanship.....

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Wonder why the Aussies are making such a big fuss about it. Did Symonds walk after the whole world heard the edge off his bat to an Ishant Sharma delivery during that infamous Sydney test in 2007/08? Did Ricky Ponting walk after he flicked Saurav Ganguly down the leg side into the hands of MS Dhoni in that same test match? WTBF are the Aussies on about????

yes, quite. and the billion other times it's happened to all teams.

the furore seems to be because it was so obvious on replays, it seems not to be so much "don't cheat." more "if you're going to cheat, cheat well."

 

[Cricketman]

If bowlers can get fined for over appealing, ball tampering, or a fielder gets bashed for claiming a grassed catch (eg: Ramdin) than batsman should certainly get the same treatment for not walking. I'm not talking about the faint edges, but in this case Broad absolutely middled the ball almost to Gully! Come on!

 

[barmyarmy]

Actually the only reason it went to slip was that it hit Haddin's gloves.
Maybe we should follow the Michael Clarke route and justify not walking by using up a review...

 

[MUFC1987]

The problem is, if you think Broad should be banned or whatever, then what about Clarke today?

If you think Clarke should be banned, because he did hit it, but didn't walk, then you're being harsh, because he could quite easily just not realised that he did hit it.

If you don't think Clarke should be banned, then what's the difference between that and Broad? Both hit the ball, both didn't walk.

And what's this about Broad getting a big edge? He got a thin edge into the keeper's gloves who then deflected it to slip, it didn't go straight there off the bat.

----------

Minute too slow for the last paragraph.

 

[sifter132]

^You're on the right track with the circular logic trap that most fans have right now...

But I think to pick up on your last point, Broad's edge was quite thick. If it were thin Haddin would have caught it, instead it hit the very edge of his gloves. If Haddin wasn't there, that goes straight to Clarke.

I've submitted this as a query to the MCC, but essentially I can't see how I'm wrong.



https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-32-caught-1/

Where does it say the umpire has to give that out??!?! This common practice of standing your ground is cheating, or at the very least not in the "spirit of cricket"

I agree with this. Blatant standing your ground when it's an obvious edge is wrong, and it's definitely not the behaviour that we should be encouraging or admiring as fans. Hopefully ICC squashes this idea ASAP.

Main issue is that it's just hard to PROVE that a player knew he has hit it, and is therefore cheating. eg. Michael Clarke last night. He said he wasn't sure he'd hit it and that's why he reviewed. Plausible that he didn't know he'd hit it? Sure, I've done that myself on thin edges to the keeper - sometimes you just don't feel it. I'd say it was even very probable that Clarke thought he didn't hit it, given that he used a review. But for people to come out and call him a cheat today is stretching it a long way. Cheating for not being sure? That means any bowlers that appeals for something he then won't review would then be cheating, right? And that's not right.

My personal view is that if you've played the ball to anyone other than the keeper you should walk. You can't legislate that ANY edge you must walk for because thin edges are hard to detect, for both the BATSMAN and umpires. Even the legendary Andrew Symonds not out of 2007/08 vs India was not a big deflection like Broad's. Watch the tape of the Symonds' gaffe and Dhoni even moves slightly leg side to take the ball ie. he was hardly diving in front of 1st slip and then Bucknor giving him not out.

Broad's is the most blatant I've seen, and I hate that people are talking tough and patting him on the back for it.

 

[Ashu54]

well, broad has not really broken any rule BTW... coz umpire didn't raised his finger

the factor responsible is sportsmanship because we have seen sachin tendulkar walking many times and even at times when he was in his nervous nineties...

also Australians are infamous for these things too!!! as mentioned above,Sydney test January 7 Sunday was really awful I remember yuvraj fielding a ball at square leg inside the circle and umpire signaled 4

that day 7 decisions excluding the yuvraj incident occurred following few more in coming days....

 

[used2bcool]

Look, I'd agree with the whole you-must-walk philosophy if the umpires were unpaid chumps. But they're not, they're professionals. They get paid to make that decision, and the laws of cricket place power ultimately in the umpires' hands. If the umpire makes a wrong decision in the bowler's favor, the batsman has to go. The batsman has every right to stand his ground as long as this disparity exists. If he's fined for that, then by the same coin the umpire should be fined for each incorrect decision that costs a wicket.

 

[Punk_Sk8r]

^^Completely agree. Although, whatever has happened cannot be reverted, but it is a shame that Broad didn't walk, more shameful is the way in which the members here are defending his actions in the other thread!

The definition


Comparing it with the Ramdin incident, is simply determining the level of cheating. The level, would simply tell the distinct way one should be punished. But at the end of the day, both the incidents are equally immoral. Shameful!

Yeah but the reason people are defending broad is because australia's very own Ponting never walked so why should we? funny aussies are crying like little girls now. Must hurt not having won an ashes series for a couple of years!

simple case of fight fire with fire, aussies like to do this kind of stuff so why not give them a taste of their own medicine and watch them cry now rofl

 

[ferg512]

Not sure whether people have seen this but wouldn't it be interesting to hear Swanns take on the whole thing, hypocrisy at its finest.

Graeme Swann in blast at Sri Lankan 'cheat' | Mail Online

"And I wanted to kill the batsman because he was cheating and was stood next to me with a smug look on his face!" one of the quotes from Swann.

 

[Owzat]

I got a reply from someone at MCC, I trust they do not object to me quoting them.

The debate on whether a batsman should 'walk' or not has raged for
years, and will continue to do so. The Spirit of Cricket, which was
included as the preamble to the Laws of Cricket when the 1st Edition of
the 2000 Code of Laws was published, is an over-arching set of
principles that sets the tone for how the game should be played.

The key principle of the Spirit of Cricket is that of respect, namely
for your opponents, for your own captain and team, for the umpires and
for the game's traditional values.

Whilst some think that a batsman not 'walking' is cheating, others feel
that it is up to the umpire to make a decision. The key point is that
the players must accept all the umpires' decisions in good grace,
particularly if they disagree with it.

There will never be a 'right' answer to this debate. In an ideal world
everyone would 'walk' if they know they have hit the ball but it is
unrealistic to expect everyone to do so. In MCC's own matches, the
majority of which are against schools, its batsmen are strongly
encouraged to 'walk'.

I'm not sure why it is "unrealistic" to expect someone to depart the crease if they know they have hit the ball, for me that should be a minimum requirement. I appreciate some will disagree, but if you know you are out then the only gain of loitering is a reprieve and for me that is cheating, ' ' or otherwise.

If you know you've hit someone and drive off it is hit and run, failing to stop at the scene of an accident. You know you should stop, you shouldn't need someone to tell you or a copper to pull you over. It's knowing right from wrong, whether a legal requirement or not, in the laws or not.

The 'others do it, why shouldn't I?" mentality is also wrong and very worrying among fans as well as players. 'Others' rape, murder, are paedophiles, thieves, benefit fraudsters, play hooky from school or work, doesn't make it ok for you to do it. People hit other people's cars and don't have the decency to leave their details or even admit it, they get away with it but it doesn't make it right.

In fact I think that's a good comparison, where we wouldn't like it done to us, where others do it and get away with it, forcing the law to act or prove ineffectual, requiring a witness (parallel to umpire) to force the offender to admit their offence. I'm sure most on here will either have been hit by another car/vehicle, hit another vehicle, or know someone who has (been), and know that it is a messy situation mainly caused by the gain - no insurance increase/claim.

Broad should feel guilty he stuck around and scored a few more runs, pretty much won England the game much like that dubious catch in 2005 that cut the aussie charge just short. I wouldn't want to win a game with doubt over whether my DISHONESTY was the defining moment and helped win. As I'm sure Broad won't like it if the shoe is on the other foot and England lose because of a dodgy incident.

Wouldn't be the first time England have won by not "walking", Nasser twice in one innings in Sri Lanka a classic example and that changed the series from losing and probably won us the series, only our second series win in Sri Lanka and the only one involving more than a one-off Test.

Maybe if one side takes a stand (metaphorically) against standing your ground, drops anyone who doesn't "walk", other sides will follow suit. Now THAT is unrealistic, there's plenty of talk of fair play but we always expect the other side to play fair instead of leading by example. And since England has "comfort breaks", "dirt in pocket", "jelly beans" and other feeble offences to try and gain small advantages which might have fallen just short of breaching laws officially, they aren't the only ones yet I'd like to see someone take a moral stand.

The MCC guys response was reasonable, but did rather edge on the side of a "safe" option, not wanting to call a spade a spade and the "no right answer" mentality suggests they aren't THAT unhappy about the situation. "It's just not cricket" simply doesn't carry any weight anymore, to me walking is as much of a blight on cricket as 'going down easily' is in football, or maybe diving or dissent or all the other nonsense and attempts to gain a decision or advantage that sport brings