Walking vs. Catching

[sohum]

With respect to the recently concluded "test" match between India and Australia, I'd like to bring up an issue that is at the core of much of the controversy. Umpiring decisions were at the forefront of the controversy, but what it really came down to was how much the players can afford to help the umpires. This issue really came to light, though, when the Australian players started appealing left, right and center during the final day, and in turn spurring a controversy about "integrity".

From what I understand, Anil Kumble and ricky ponting made an agreement before the series began to go on the fielder's words for close catches. While I don't agree with such an agreement, I thought it may have value given that Ponting let off Dravid (who was albeit in poor form at a time when the Indians were way behind the Aussies).

I was lucky to be a non-spectator on the tense final day of the game but what I've read on Cricinfo and elsewhere suggests that this unquestionable trust on a fielder may be misplaced. It particularly seems a little finicky given that batsmen can stand their ground even if they've knocked the cover off the ball, as happened in this test match, per that argument.

People who advocate non-walking claim that it is up to the umpire to make the decision. By that same logic, it should be up to the umpire to make the decision regarding a catch--and hence the agreement should not have been made in the first place.

While cricket would be best with walkers and honest fielders, it is safe to say that nothing of that sort is going to be happening in international cricket given the currently intense state of affairs and the money that is associated with the game. Winning is everything and most players follow the philosophy that it should come at the cost of anything.

So, finally, I raise two questions for you to discuss:

1. Should captains make such a potentially contradictory pre-series agreement?
2. Does walking/honest fielding actually have a place in international cricket?

Please don't pollute this thread with comments about poor umpiring decisions or insults against players based on decisions they take.

 

[Kev]

Should captains make pre-series agreements?

As long as they don't run against the spirit or laws of the game and as long as they aren't underhand.

Does walking/honest fielding actually have a place in international cricket?

I've quite often posted my dislike of not walking and dishonesty on the field but usually I am widely condemned as being old fashioned and outdated.

 

[sohum]

I'm on your side with regards to your opinion on walking, and it's not just because I have crossed the 2 decade barrier. While it is just a game and a lucrative game at that, it just leaves a bad taste to see a batsman blatantly edge it and then hang around. I certainly believe this has increased in frequency in the last half-a-decade or so.

As for the pre-series agreement, I disagree that they should be made especially formulated as they have been. This test match was a clear example of how the agreement is not complete. It perhaps may even be advisable to include a clause that suggests that a batsman walk if we want to include the fielder clause.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I believe batsmen should walk when they edged it and fielders shouldn't claim a catch if they hadn't caught it. It is just like cheating in a test. May get you good grades, but doesn't reflect your ability and leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of everyone involved. Why do it?

I feel there is no problem with agreements, but if a fielder or batsmen breaks it then both teams will feel terrible about it. One would feel they were robbed, the other that the first is accusing them of lying. So it is probably in the best intrest of the series that such agreements aren't made if they can't be kept.

 

[handsome]

1. No they are players and mist abide to the decision-makers

2.No ( Why are Umpires for?)

 

[sohum]

Indeed Zorax. I feel it should be all left to the umpires. And the umpires should have accountability, but that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[barmyarmy]

I can't think of any cricketer who genuinely walks. If the idea is that the good and bad decisions will balance out over time then shouldn't players be making the most of decisions that go their way even if they are wrong?
The only solution, much as people will protest, is TV replays.

 

[sohum]

I can't think of any cricketer who genuinely walks. If the idea is that the good and bad decisions will balance out over time then shouldn't players be making the most of decisions that go their way even if they are wrong?
The only solution, much as people will protest, is TV replays.

I'm pretty sure that Gilly and Dhoni walk. I don't agree with the "balancing of decisions" because two wrongs never make a right. People think that getting a bad decision for you and against you are opposite whereas the clear case is that they are both bad for cricket.

 

[handsome]

Indeed Zorax. I feel it should be all left to the umpires. And the umpires should have accountability, but that is a discussion for another thread.

No...Not buckner again I think we must have a combination of both...I am seriously with players challenging the umpire's decision.

 

[sohum]

No...Not buckner again I think we must have a combination of both...I am seriously with players challenging the umpire's decision.

Well I mean when they have poor matches like Bucknor in Australia 2003/04 and here again, rapid steps should be taken by the ICC to ensure that the level of umpiring in the Elite Panel is not tarnished.

 

[Kev]

I can't think of any cricketer who genuinely walks.

Internationally probably not these days, but I certainly remember cricketers who walked in the past and no, it wasn't in the days before TV or electricity

I think there are honest professional cricketers but the pressures of international cricket and the fact that not walking has become the norm has made it impossible for a player not to walk. This erosion of moral fibre is spreading throughout the world of sport like a virus. The only genuinely honest sportsmen I can think of these days are snooker players.

Edit:

Yes, I think sohum is right, Gilly does walk and I remember him getting lambasted for it. Can't remember seeing Dhoni walk, doesn't mean he doesn't just means I don't remember or didn't see it.

 

[svijay]

There will always be bump catches that are too close to call, even with the aid of television replays. My understanding is that the agreement, if there was one, referred only to such scenarios. Wouldn't it be better to go with the fielder's word than have the umpire do a mental coin toss in such cases?

As long as appealing (and lbw/caught behind verdicts are seldom handed out in the absence of an appeal) is part of the laws of cricket, there is nothing wrong in umpires getting input from the players. After all, the final decision rests with them.

I am all for walking, but I am also in sympathy with Steve Waugh's rhetorical question: "If you discover that you've been speeding, do you hand yourself in at the nearest police station?"

 

[evertonfan]

It's an umpire's job to give peopl out. Not the batsman's. If a bad decision goes against you then unlucky, deal with it.

You can talk about it being against the spirit of the game all you want, but it's against the spirit of the game to threaten pulling out of tours because your cricket board is bitter yet there doesn't seem to be much opposition to that does there?

 

[sohum]

It's an umpire's job to give peopl out. Not the batsman's. If a bad decision goes against you then unlucky, deal with it.

Is it the fielder's decision to give a batsman out? That's what this thread is about. We know that the captains made a pre-series agreement--I'm just debating if the agreement even makes sense.

My understanding is that the agreement, if there was one, referred only to such scenarios. Wouldn't it be better to go with the fielder's word than have the umpire do a mental coin toss in such cases?

I don't agree. If referred to the third umpire, the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. Hence, if it is too close to call, then the batsman should be not out. Which is why the umpire doesn't really do a mental coin toss. If the batsman is shown to be caught out clean--he's gone.

 

[Kev]

I know you are talking about International Cricket, but in County cricket, the umpires often ask fielders for help, asking if a ball went for 6 or 4 for example is very common, usually the fielders are honest enough.