Walking?

[j_tig]

with all the batsmen keen for that first beer and walking, whats everyones opinion on walking?

i find it hard to say either way - if u think ur out then yea go, but what about the team? honesty is the best policy, but... i cant make my mind up!
i was just curious but, thought about it heaps since gilly famously walked against sri lanka, why are u still out if u walk when the umpire declares not out? why doesnt he call the batsman back and make them take the strike again?
as u may be able to tell i'm a cricket fan, not a player.

 

[Macca]

NEVER! :evil:

 

[lolesi]

NEVER! :evil:

Agreed

 

[Twizzle]

As a cricketer I dont believe in it.

You re on a hiding to nothing if you walk.

Kasper walked after being given not out. What happens if he is given out off the pad without hitting the ball (which happen regularly), he has to go. He cant say to the ump "I didn't hit it, because if I did, I would have walked." Thats contempt.

When batting I have been given out when I wasn't. When bowling I have had people caight behind, and umps have given them not out.

If you leave it up to the umpire, it should even out over your career, if you walk, it will never get a chance to even up.

 

[pogo]

in the old days "70 s" there was no duty umpiring in park cricket and each batting team umpired their own players.

this led to many arguments as your own often didnt easily give lbw or close call catches.

one day i was playing for bondi icebergs in the eastern subs comp when one of our batsman played and i thought missed ( he had actually got a feather edge ) he walked immediately!!

i had never walked as an opening batsman i reckoned i had got plenty of dud lbw s, however his actions struck me greatly that day and i have never forgotten how relieved i felt as it took away any onus on me making a bad or biased call.

the" dont walk " brigade dont understand that two wrongs dont make a right, by that i mean if you do walk when you know you are out then all those decisions are correct.

when you are wrongly given out it is by error and you cannot change that by hoping errors are made in your favour.

things never even out and those who think they do are kidding themselves.

adam gilchrist is an absolute champion player and i admire his stance on this issue, it is in direct contrast to steve waugh s .

i concede this is a personal issue and everyone varies in their opinions.

as a footnote some 25 years later when playing in the ssca i didnt walk in the same circumstance as i related above, the umpire a black and white was enormously respected in the association , he waited for me to walk he looked me straight in the eye and i stayed put.
slowly he raised his finger, i felt like an absolute hypocrite and have regretted that ever since.

gilchrists actions are in my opinion those of not only a champion player but a champion sportsman.

 

[wittyfan]

Umpires are there to decide who's out or not. The batsman should wait for the decision before walking.

 

[Macca]

I disagree Pogo, I think it does even out.

 

[Azkatro]

I approve of batsmen walking if they know they're rightly out. Cricket is sport; not war. Gilchrist's examples of nobility are a fine gesture of the nature of sport. You play hard, but you play fair. If you know you're out, walk. If you know you didn't quite take that catch, don't claim it. If you know the ball slipped out of your hands just as you took the bails off for a run out, don't claim it.

I place doing anything other than that in the category of cheating.

 

[sanjane]

i love seeing batsmen walking, fielders saying they are doubtful as to whether they've caught the ball, or stumped someone out, batsmen leaving the field despite the 3rd umps decision not made..the like...Harsha Bogle referred to the niceities in cricket...those are some.

nowadays, most teams have a few noted walkers:
Australia- Gilchrist
India- Yuvraj, Irfan, Sachin, Patel (i think both dravid and ganguly also, not sure)
WI- BC Lara
SL- Mahela, Dilshan, Vaas, Chandana, Zoyza, Gunawardene

I personally walk, but even if you walk (unless everyone knows about it ala BC vs Eng, 1st Test, 2004), you shouldnt get peeved off. and just because uve copped a poor one, doesnt mean u should stay the next time......i just find it hard to do

 

[IanG]

Yeah walking is soemthing I have never liked. I never walk unless it's blantently out. If there's a close call I stand my ground and wait for the umpire's decision. If he says I'm not out I stay if he says I am, I go.

 

[blackfriday]

if batsman should walk when they are out, they are entitled to stay when theyre not

 

[Iafeta]

I think walking should be brought back - the good old days were good for a reason, honesty and integrity.

Gilchrist has hopefully started the wheel back in motion to what is right.

Twizz, I do remember one time bowling a ripper of an outswinger, cleanest knick in the world, you would have heard it from Bombay, straight into the keepers gloves, the batsman's mate who was umpiring at the time said not out. That is the most frustrating moment in cricket, when you've beaten a good player and he gets a tinny decision, I'd rather that little sucker packed his bags and walked.

I do however definitely agree with your notion about it'll never be even if you do walk. I too know I've had some woeful decisions against me batting wise. I was a bit of a bunny, good bowler, but batting bunny, but I know I got my fair share of shockers and that feeling when you've been given out to a nuff nuff ball that is nowhere near out is very, very ordinary.

It's a hard one, but now with a bit more maturity, if I did get off my bumcrack and get fit again to play, I'd like to think in the moment I would walk.

Coincidentally, I heard a belter in 2SM this afternoon from an Indian chap. He said, I hear petrol prices are going pretty high in Australia at the moment. They said why? He said, because I've noticed a lot of Australians walking!!!! Corker.

 

[IanG]

BOOM BOOM!!!

 

[girvie]

What if the Australia wins the first test, India wins the second, the third is a draw, in the 4th test Australia are 9/250 in the 2nd innings chasing 253. Gilchrist is on strike and needs a 4 to become a hero by captaining Australia to a series win in India. The bowler bowls, Gilchrist nicks it and is caught by the keeper but is given not out. Would he walk?

 

[Anonymous]

What if the Australia wins the first test, India wins the second, the third is a draw, in the 4th test Australia are 9/250 in the 2nd innings chasing 253. Gilchrist is on strike and needs a 4 to become a hero by captaining Australia to a series win in India. The bowler bowls, Gilchrist nicks it and is caught by the keeper but is given not out. Would he walk?

Except of course Ponting will be back, captaining the side.

 

[Azkatro]

What if the Australia wins the first test, India wins the second, the third is a draw, in the 4th test Australia are 9/250 in the 2nd innings chasing 253. Gilchrist is on strike and needs a 4 to become a hero by captaining Australia to a series win in India. The bowler bowls, Gilchrist nicks it and is caught by the keeper but is given not out. Would he walk?

Undoubtedly.

I also agree with IanG's sentiments though. Only walk if you know you're out. If you don't know yourself, wait for a decision.

 

[Twizzle]

What if the Australia wins the first test, India wins the second, the third is a draw, in the 4th test Australia are 9/250 in the 2nd innings chasing 253. Gilchrist is on strike and needs a 4 to become a hero by captaining Australia to a series win in India. The bowler bowls, Gilchrist nicks it and is caught by the keeper but is given not out. Would he walk?

Knowing Gilly, yes.

His attitude is, if you're out, you're out, and your team would not have deserved to win.

 

[Anonymous]

Up to the batsmen. I don't have a problem with people who don't walk. I however do, or did when I played. I want to win fair and square. Anything else is pointless to me.

 

[beef]

I have no problem with walking. I dont do it myself mainly because i think most of the time the umpires decision is going to be less biased than mine. There are some situations when you just SHOULD walk. For example we were fielding and the batsmen had blocked out a few overs. We had a change of bowler and first ball went straight through him. The ball went BETWEEN the stumps. The umpire had misjudged the distance between each stump when setting them up and allowed too big of a gap. He knew he was out, I did (being keeper i had the best view) but the umpire gave not out. #-o

 

[Johns Magic]

I have no problem with walking. I dont do it myself mainly because i think most of the time the umpires decision is going to be less biased than mine. There are some situations when you just SHOULD walk. For example we were fielding and the batsmen had blocked out a few overs. We had a change of bowler and first ball went straight through him. The ball went BETWEEN the stumps. The umpire had misjudged the distance between each stump when setting them up and allowed too big of a gap. He knew he was out, I did (being keeper i had the best view) but the umpire gave not out. #-o

If a bail is not dislodged, the batsman is not out. Even if it somehow goes through the stumps.