Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 25th July 2013, 12:31   #61
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillypoint View Post
He is withholding evidence from the umpire.
Same as a batsman when he knows he's hit it but remains.

Oh, but he doesn't have to, because that's not the way it works. Good lord, for a moment I'd forgotten that cricket was a batsman's game!
Summer of '77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 12:56   #62
sillypoint
World Class
 
sillypoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer of '77 View Post
Same as a batsman when he knows he's hit it but remains.

Oh, but he doesn't have to, because that's not the way it works. Good lord, for a moment I'd forgotten that cricket was a batsman's game!
No, the batsman doesn't have to say anything because he doesn't have to testify against himself. The fielder is not allowed to do that because he is testifying against someone else. Very simple and universal legal principle.
sillypoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 12:56   #63
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer of '77 View Post
Same as a batsman when he knows he's hit it but remains.

Oh, but he doesn't have to, because that's not the way it works. Good lord, for a moment I'd forgotten that cricket was a batsman's game!
It's not the same though, because the batsman has no say. Whatever the batsman does (for instance, claim he didn't edge it), it is not taken into account by the umpire. However, by allowing his teammates to appeal, Ramdin is claiming the catch.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 12:58   #64
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
It's not the same though, because the batsman has no say.
Yes he does. He can say "Yeah, I hit that" and walk off. Just because he doesn't have to doesn't mean he shouldn't.
Summer of '77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 13:13   #65
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillypoint View Post
Yeah, we know you only care about what you think, and that you don't take into account minor things such as the laws of physics or men.
Sillypoint, I think this is rude, and uncalled for.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 13:42   #66
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Sillypoint, I think this is rude, and uncalled for.
It could quite easily be interpreted that you were fairly rude to him when you were arguing that his point wasn't a relevant one, despite him explaining the analogy rather well.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 15:36   #67
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
It could quite easily be interpreted that you were fairly rude to him when you were arguing that his point wasn't a relevant one, despite him explaining the analogy rather well.
Perhaps on Planet Zarg, but I very much doubt it. There wasn't anything rude in what I said.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 15:58   #68
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Perhaps on Planet Zarg, but I very much doubt it. There wasn't anything rude in what I said.
Not debating a reasonable point he made in return to you may be considered rude on Planet Zarg and in many parts of planet earth too.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 16:25   #69
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Not debating a reasonable point he made in return to you may be considered rude on Planet Zarg and in many parts of planet earth too.
Well if Sillypoint thinks so -- which I doubt -- then let him say so. I'd already said (in response to GBG) that the analogy was weak, and (in my first post in the thread) that in my opinion, the obvious distinction between omission and commission is not materially relevant to the question of whether one should walk. In any case, it wouldn't justify what Sillypoint came out with.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 16:35   #70
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 824
As a Batsman you always know if you knicked it.

If the ICC were bothered about people not walking they would simply ban anybody (Broad) who hit it and didn't walk. Until there is the will from the administrators to stop cheating it will always go on.
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 17:09   #71
Long Off
World Class
 
Long Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 5,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Why so? Isn't it just daft, and unfair to oneself and one's team, a bit like "retired couldn't be bothered"?
Did you play cricket?
Long Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 17:36   #72
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Off View Post
Did you play cricket?
Yes, plenty. Why do you ask? My question was a serious question. It's fairly clear why those who argue in favour of walking would be critical of non-walkers: because, the story goes, they are attempting to to gain an unfair advantage, hoping the umpire will make a mistake and they can stay in. The walker wants the standards of decision-making to be as high as possible, and so he would want as many batsmen as possible to pitch in and give themselves out where appropriate. But I don't understand why those in favour of not walking are so tolerant of walkers -- especially in their own team. If I was a non-walker, I'd definitely look for a team that didn't include any walkers, because that team would regularly take advantage of umpiring errors and as a result they would score more runs and win more games.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 17:38   #73
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Privilege against self-incrimination is a long established common law principle. A batsman therefore has the right to await a verdict of the judge (in this instance the umpire) having considered all the evidence (which would include video replays, hotspot and snicko) without incriminating himself.
There's a big assumption there that sport is subservient to the basic common law principles. If that were the case, preambles on "the spirit of the game", including concepts of "fair play" would not appear, and sporting ethics would be irrelevant.

In practice, sports tends to work under different principles, and have well developed codes of ethics. These vary from sport to sport and over time - Australian State of Origin players have recently had to come to terms with the new values of the NRL which means they'll now get sent off for thumping an opponent.

Golfers are expected to self-incriminate, and reputations are ruined if it is discovered that they knowingly did not do so. No explanations about "rights to avoid self-incrimination" help there - the game expects higher standards from the players.

And yes, I know that many club golfers don't adopt those higher standards.
Quote:
However under the Laws of Cricket a fielding side must appeal before the Umpire can give the batsman out.
There's an interesting subtlety in the laws of cricket about dismissals.

The concept of "out" in the various law as is defined without recourse to the umpires' decisions, or the need for an appeal. Thus as far as the laws are concerned, Broad was clearly and unambiguously out.

However, he was not dismissed.

Quote:
A batsman is dismissed if,

either (a) he is given out by an umpire, on appeal,

or (b) he is out under any of the Laws and leaves his wicket as in 1 above.
I take a fairly simplistic view on sporting ethics, in that if a player knowingly attempts to take advantage of a situation, knowing that if the full facts were known he would not be entitled to that advantage, he is cheating. There may be differences in culpability depending on whether or not he deliberately cause the situation to occur, but it is still cheating. Likewise, deliberately trying to obtain such an advantage is cheating. Using this definition, my opinion is that Broad cheated, Ramdin cheated, Haddin cheated at the death at TB, and various bowlers of recent memory were serial cheats. And I have cheated in various sports.

There may well be arguments that Broad should not be vilified for cheating, and that he was only conforming to the modern (and not so modern) norms. There may well be arguments that being the only one who wouldn't cheat under those circumstances is to be a mug. But under the laws of the game he was out, he knew it, and if the umpire had known the full facts, he would have been dismissed.

However, I hate the selective application of ethics - and until one side demonstrates a willingness to eschew all forms of cheating, they can hardly be selective about which forms they criticise the other side for adopting.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 17:44   #74
Long Off
World Class
 
Long Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 5,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Yes, plenty. Why do you ask? My question was a serious question. It's fairly clear why those who argue in favour of walking would be critical of non-walkers: because, the story goes, they are attempting to to gain an unfair advantage, hoping the umpire will make a mistake and they can stay in. The walker wants the standards of decision-making to be as high as possible, and so he would want as many batsmen as possible to pitch in and give themselves out where appropriate. But I don't understand why those in favour of not walking are so tolerant of walkers -- especially in their own team. If I was a non-walker, I'd definitely look for a team that didn't include any walkers, because that team would regularly take advantage of umpiring errors and as a result they would score more runs and win more games.
It was a serious question. In my experience of playing cricket, batsmen only walked when they were sure they would be given out. I see nothing wrong with this. If you walk, there is nothing wrong with that either as long as you don't complain when you are given out unfairly.
Long Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 17:44   #75
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
There's a big assumption there that sport is subservient to the basic common law principles. If that were the case, preambles on "the spirit of the game", including concepts of "fair play" would not appear, and sporting ethics would be irrelevant.

In practice, sports tends to work under different principles, and have well developed codes of ethics.
To be honest, real life isn't dictated entirely by laws either. There's no law that compels people to donate blood, yet millions do; there are probably many different individual reasons for doing so but the one that underpins them all is surely that it's the right thing to do. Just because you don't have to do something doesn't mean that you shouldn't.
Summer of '77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 18:05   #76
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Off View Post
It was a serious question. In my experience of playing cricket, batsmen only walked when they were sure they would be given out. I see nothing wrong with this. If you walk, there is nothing wrong with that either as long as you don't complain when you are given out unfairly.
Gosh, I'm honestly surprised you've never come across a walker. But in such a context, wouldn't you be rather miffed if half of your team suddenly started walking?

In most of the cricket I've played, the umpires are supplied by the batting team, so non-walking coupled with inept -- and potentially biased -- umpiring is a potent mixture, enough to give a team a bad name and fewer fixtures next year. I suppose the better the umpiring, the fewer bad decisions stand to be made through non-walking; but even at the top level there are still quite a few bad decisions for caught behind, and as we've seen with Broad, these can't necessarily be corrected.

I don't think being a walker means one is not entitled to complain when one is mistakenly given out. On balance the walker is probably more entitled to do so than the non-walker, because his method is to encourage good decisions to be made. The non-walker, who deliberately encourages bad decision-making, is the one who ought not to complain. But in practice, feeling hard done by when given out unfairly is probably understandable from anyone. Would you really want to prohibit it to walkers?
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 18:40   #77
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
Well if Sillypoint thinks so -- which I doubt -- then let him say so. I'd already said (in response to GBG) that the analogy was weak, and (in my first post in the thread) that in my opinion, the obvious distinction between omission and commission is not materially relevant to the question of whether one should walk. In any case, it wouldn't justify what Sillypoint came out with.
It was far less as to what sillypoint thinks than as to that your response to him in that previous instance. From an independent standpoint I can see why he may have been hacked off as you were abrupt in simply dismissing its relevance there an then rather than you have later on in the response above. He had at least to explain his argument then. As it is the arguments have gone about as far away from the original point as one might imagine and thankfully brought back on topic by Long Off.

As regards the actual playing of the game, I know exactly the type of cricket that you are talking about as that is the type that I play these days, as I have done for a number of years now. To be honest when I'm umpiring I get rather hacked off at members of my own team if they don't walk for a rather obvious nick because if you don't give them out it creates bad feeling between sides unnecessarily and you may not get the privilege of a fixture against them the next season. They ain't playing a test match and I don't appreciate them having a moan afterwards.

However international cricket is a world away from that sort of stuff and has gamesmanship comparable to that undertaken in football with diving, pressurising the referee, 'subtle' fouls to stop the momentum of the opposition. That is what happens in professional sport. It is their living and they tend to stretch the rules/and or spirit of the game where they can.
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 18:50   #78
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
However international cricket is a world away from that sort of stuff and has gamesmanship comparable to that undertaken in football with diving, pressurising the referee, 'subtle' fouls to stop the momentum of the opposition. That is what happens in professional sport. It is their living and they tend to stretch the rules/and or spirit of the game where they can.
That's very true but, I see no reason why we as fans should be happy to accept it. I think we have the right to call foul if we see it as such, or cease watching (as I've tended to do with most international football after too many cheat-laden tournaments).
Summer of '77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 18:58   #79
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer of '77 View Post
That's very true but, I see no reason why we as fans should be happy to accept it. I think we have the right to call foul if we see it as such, or cease watching (as I've tended to do with most international football after too many cheat-laden tournaments).
We don't have to be happy with it, but unless you can pretty much review every single contentious moment it ain't gonna happen and that is what we have to get to grips with. In any case it gives something to talk about on outlets such as this, despite how tedious many of the discussions have become and that they have veered as spectacularly away from the original point as a Jimmy outswinger!
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2013, 19:00   #80
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
We don't have to be happy with it, but unless you can pretty much review every single contentious moment it ain't gonna happen and that is what we have to get to grips with. In any case it gives something to talk about on outlets such as this, despite how tedious many of the discussions have become and that they have veered as spectacularly away from the original point as a Jimmy outswinger!
Yeah...kinda drives a coach and horses through the notion that "this Broad thing will all blow over very quickly".
Summer of '77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:55.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org