There is absolutely no doubt that taking drugs in sport is cheating - no matter what spin you put on it. Cheating - pure and simple.
However, how on earth could a batsman, or batter (or anyone playing sport) be accused of being a cheat after the umpire has made his decision? It's not the batsmans fault that the umpire made a correct or incorrect decision. The umpires are there to umpire and the players are there to play. It's pretty clear cut.
There have been thousands of incidents over the years in all sports where the umpire, referee etc... have made a mistake. So why could that be the players problem? Do we have thousands of cheats playing top level sport? ..simply because the umpire got it wrong?
Look at tennis for example.. I think that is one sport that can have many close calls per match. There will be some that are incorrect (probably) and these will probably even out over the course of the match.
So a BIG Get Stuffed to all those who accuse the players of being cheats if they don't "walk" - or correct the umpire for a mistake.
Originally posted by AussieGAn individual point in tennis is over the course of a match largely irrelevant, as is a single scoring shot in cricket. A wicket on the other hand is very significant.
There is absolutely no doubt that taking drugs in sport is cheating - no matter what spin you put on it. Cheating - pure and simple.
However, how on earth could a batsman, or batter (or anyone playing sport) be accused of being a cheat after the umpire has made his decision? It's not the batsmans fault that the umpire made a correct or incorrect decision. ...[text shortened]... use the players of being cheats if they don't "walk" - or correct the umpire for a mistake.
Of course in the tennis example, with the players movement and speed of the, it's very possible that the umpire is needed to make the decision. Whilst the player may feel it's in/out/etc, they may honestly not know for sure.
Whilst that situation can exist in cricket (LBW, very low catches) where the players cannot be in a position to be sure, then the player must wait for the decision. If he knows that it is out then he really should walk. The umpire can always stop him if there is a reason which the player is unaware (e.g. a no ball).
I don't like the whole attitude, and it's far from just being cricket, which prevails that something is fine provided the officials don't spot it. I've seen enough simulation watching football, plus appeals for decisions players know they don't deserve.
Kumar Sangakkara walking earlier this year against England was good to see; it should be the norm, not a notable exception. There needs to be more sportsmanship, which includes being honest. No need to make officiating as hard as possible.
Originally posted by PeakiteExcellent post.
An individual point in tennis is over the course of a match largely irrelevant, as is a single scoring shot in cricket. A wicket on the other hand is very significant.
Of course in the tennis example, with the players movement and speed of the, it's very possible that the umpire is needed to make the decision. Whilst the player may feel it's in/out/etc, t ...[text shortened]... rtsmanship, which includes being honest. No need to make officiating as hard as possible.
Hang on.. isn't the whole point here to get EVERY decision correct - regardless of how significant it is?(as someone has previously stated?? ) In tennis, close calls in tie-breakers or at the end of sets/matches can be vitally important. And I can tell you, pro tennis players DO NOT give up favourable calls. So again, here, the decisions are left to the officials.
Again, in cricket, while I praise those batsmen who do walk, it's definitely the umpires decision. The administrators will not be assessing the players for the quality of officiating.
World class sport is a cut-throat environment with high stakes and high intesity. The players are trying their guts out to win and often cannot see things in a rational light. That IS WHY umpires are there AND paid the big dollars - to adjudicate and make the game fair for both teams.
Officiating is difficult - no matter how you look at it. Sure, there are some incorrect decisions at times but overall, they do a very good job!
Originally posted by AussieGI think that if the umpire and opposing side are prepared to accept a batsman's version of events when he's prepared to walk when given not out, they should be prepared to do the same if he insists he didn't snick the ball.
Yesterday, in the 2nd between Australia and India, there were 3 really terible decisions which in hindsight, have had a big impact on the game.
1. Ricky Ponting edges a ball down the legside but was given not out.
2. Later, Ponting clearly edged the ball into his pads but given out LBW
3. Andrew Symonds clearly edged a ball but was given not out.
S ...[text shortened]... walk if they know they're out? Or should they wait till the umpire makes his decision? Why?
Personally I think getting every decision right is pointless. If that was the aim we'd have to monitor every foot placement and bowler's arm for no-balls, every run-out would have to go to the third umpire, every catch, field by the boundary and lbw would have to be referred. The game would become a logistic exercise and lose all its character.
So instead I'm happy with the game as it is, some third umpiring, but for the largest part it works on player trust and the opinion of the main umpires. I don't object to a batsman walking, nor to one staying, only upon the decision of the umpire and long may it stay that way. In the level of cricket I play you get as many good decisions as bad and you just have to lump it and get on with the game.
What I do object to, however, is tossers like Symonds admitting that they knew they were out and not walking, then boasting about their hundred runs. That's just a priggish thing to do, keep it to yourself if you're going to choose not to walk when you know you're out.
Originally posted by Starrmani cricket not already one of the dullest games because of the extremely slow pace of the game - surley it wouldn't mattter that going to the 3rd umpire would slow the game down because spectators are already after willingly paying to watch the dullest "sport" in the world.
Personally I think getting every decision right is pointless. If that was the aim we'd have to monitor every foot placement and bowler's arm for no-balls, every run-out would have to go to the third umpire, every catch, field by the boundary and lbw would have to be referred. The game would become a logistic exercise and lose all its character.
So in o do, keep it to yourself if you're going to choose not to walk when you know you're out.
Originally posted by John1916Cricket's not dull, it's just not accessible to those with a short attention span.
i cricket not already one of the dullest games because of the extremely slow pace of the game - surley it wouldn't mattter that going to the 3rd umpire wouldn't slow the game down at all.
Originally posted by John1916Whatever, it's your opinion, but it's got little to do with the topic at hand.
Cricket is extremly dull - found that out when it was show on the TV when I was in hospital. I do understand the game and it is the dullest game ever invented.
Originally posted by AussieGregarding cricket and tennis: tennis players are often not as well situated to make accurate line calls as are the officials - a batsman, on the other hand, may be better placed to know if he has snicked the ball or not than the umpire. on the other hand, the umpire is better placed to judge lbw. the issue of catching is difficult, because the field of play in cricket is so big that it officials cannot hope to cover it all adequately. i think low-to-the-ground catches should be referred to the third umpire, and if the video is inconclusive, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.
Hang on.. isn't the whole point here to get EVERY decision correct - regardless of how significant it is?(as someone has previously stated?? ) In tennis, close calls in tie-breakers or at the end of sets/matches can be vitally important. And I can tell you, pro tennis players DO NOT give up favourable calls. So again, here, the decisions are left to the offi ...[text shortened]... at it. Sure, there are some incorrect decisions at times but overall, they do a very good job!
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyI have played tennis and I have umpired tennis at the Australian open. The officials are well placed to make calls and for the most part, the players are too and generally, players know if the ball is in or not. However, there can be some questionable calls that are up for debate - that's because it's umpired, and played, by humans.
regarding cricket and tennis: tennis players are often not as well situated to make accurate line calls as are the officials - a batsman, on the other hand, may be better placed to know if he has snicked the ball or not than the umpire. on the other hand, the umpire is better placed to judge lbw. the issue of catching is difficult, because the field of p ...[text shortened]... o the third umpire, and if the video is inconclusive, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.
In cricket, regardless of who is in the better position to judge if a batsman is out of not, it's the umpires job - 100% Same with tennis. If a batsman is supposed give himself out if he thinks he hit it, then wouldn't the bowler have the right to give the batsman out for LBW's? NO. With low catches, a player will either be certain he caught it or not sure. If he caught it and knows it, why would they suggest going to the 3rd umpire? Most batsmen are pretty good with accepting a fielders word. If a player is "not sure", they will definitely not want to claim a catch because it's his integrity at stake. Therefore, they'll ask the umpires to make a decision and usually refer it to the 3rd umpire.
Everyone should get off the players back and let those in charge look after the game. I've read alot of rubbish about cheating and unsportsmanlike behaviour recently and it's pretty frustrating!