[Cricket] The Ashes- England v Australia- 2nd Test, Lords, June 28 - July 02, 2023

[PILTDOWN MAN]

You could probably count the number of current international batters who consistently walk on one hand.
If you consider that cheating (and to be clear, there's nothing in the rules to say anybody has to walk if they think they've hit it) you might as well not bother with the whole game.

You're wrong most walk when they're bowled or sky the ball. The rules state all decisions even being bowled has to be appealed and the umpire signal out.

Although technically an appeal is required for the umpire to make a decision, in practice it is often obvious to all that a batter is out, and the batter may walk off the field without waiting for the decision of the umpire. This is often the case when a batter is out bowled or to an obvious catch. However, the batter is always entitled to stand their ground and wait for a decision from the umpire. In cases where they consider they might not be out, such as a catch taken low near the grass or where it is not clear whether the ball hit the bat, batsmen will not take the walking option. It is then up to the fielding team to appeal for a decision. Sometimes a batter will walk even when it is not clear to others that they are out, if in their own mind they are certain they were out; this is considered to be the epitome of sportsmanshi

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I was in Antigua to see him score his 400. Didn’t he feather edge one to the keeper on 0 but there were no reviews in those days? I might not have remembered the circumstances there exactly but it was something like that.

Apparently TV replays suggested the appeal was correctly turned down.

Lara reclaims his record

Six months after losing his record for the highest Test score, Brian Lara faced England in Antigua. And rewrote history

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

You're wrong most walk when they're bowled or sky the ball. The rules state all decisions even being bowled has to be appealed and the umpire signal out.

Although technically an appeal is required for the umpire to make a decision, in practice it is often obvious to all that a batter is out, and the batter may walk off the field without waiting for the decision of the umpire. This is often the case when a batter is out bowled or to an obvious catch. However, the batter is always entitled to stand their ground and wait for a decision from the umpire. In cases where they consider they might not be out, such as a catch taken low near the grass or where it is not clear whether the ball hit the bat, batsmen will not take the walking option. It is then up to the fielding team to appeal for a decision. Sometimes a batter will walk even when it is not clear to others that they are out, if in their own mind they are certain they were out; this is considered to be the epitome of sportsmanshi

As an amusing aside, I had to appeal for a bowled once when playing a match without bails because it was so windy.
The ball deflected of the batsman and bounced into the stumps so lightly I'm not entirely convinced the bails would have been dislodged if they were there.

Anyway, I've never come across anybody who considers walking off when your middle stumps been taken out as an example of walking, and you might wish to read my post again to see the word "consistently" in there before you start opening posts with "you're wrong".

I would say that unless you can honestly say you'd walk off when given not out on 0 in a World Cup final, you shouldn't walk at all. If somebody only walks some of the time it's hypocrisy, not sportsmanship.

I'm also highly dubious about the claim some make that you can always tell if you hit it, since I've seen numerous examples of batters reviewing caught behind decisions only to find that they have in fact edged the ball.

 

[5Ways Gull]

The MCC are going to take disciplinary action for this outlandish behaviour….

Were they were breaking any laws/rules, if not why are they taking disciplinary action? No laws againt being rude to cheats. Also looks like the Australian players instigated the actual "confrontation "

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

As an amusing aside, I had to appeal for a bowled once when playing a match without bails because it was so windy.
The ball deflected of the batsman and bounced into the stumps so lightly I'm not entirely convinced the bails would have been dislodged if they were there.

Anyway, I've never come across anybody who considers walking off when your middle stumps been taken out as an example of walking, and you might wish to read my post again to see the word "consistently" in there before you start opening posts with "you're wrong".

I would say that unless you can honestly say you'd walk off when given not out on 0 in a World Cup final, you shouldn't walk at all. If somebody only walks some of the time it's hypocrisy, not sportsmanship.

I'm also highly dubious about the claim some make that you can always tell if you hit it, since I've seen numerous examples of batters reviewing caught behind decisions only to find that they have in fact edged the ball.

I qualified years ago as an umpire and did some Sussex Conference games as well for Horsham and alike. It's sometimes impossible to hear the slightest of touches. What got me was the sledging that took place even on a friendly Sunday game.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Reviews have made a difference because snickometer shows these up. The fact is if you are out you are out. Just because many dont walk doesnt make this cheat more acceptable. The more I read this thread many are against anything opposition does but find justification in anything we do.

Well, we can clear your concerns up straightaway. Not walking when you know you have hit it is cheating. What happened yesterday is cheating. Confusion sorted.

 

[PeterT]

I qualified years ago as an umpire and did some Sussex Conference games as well for Horsham and alike. It's sometimes impossible to hear the slightest of touches. What got me was the sledging that took place even on a friendly Sunday game.

The thing about club cricket, which I played for many years, is that the standard of umpiring was frequently awful. I remember appealing for an lbw that might just have hit a 5th stump and it being given. I also remember batting nicely, 30-ish not out and being given out in similar circumstances. I stopped to discuss with the umpire who said he didn’t really see it but as they all appealed it must have been out. If you only batted and didn’t bowl, being given out like that for me wrecked my day.

The Aussies are also really convincing when they appeal, including in this match. Add to that some incompetence from the umpires and decisions like the Stokes lbw still get given. DRS can normally help overturn the shockers, but doesn’t help on the umpire’s call ones.

In the 2006/7 Ashes, I was a member at the WACA in Perth. One evening, Brett Lee came steaming in, hit Strauss on the pad and Rudi Koertzen gives it out. It probably was going at least 1 foot over the stumps on those hard wickets but the appeal was so convincing our Rudi got taken in by it. I was in the pavilion there and walked past the umpires’ room where Rudi was sat behind some glass. I made it very clear to him what I thought of that decision and by how much it was missing - he looked a bit apologetic and shrugged his shoulders. The next day he had obviously woken up with a different perspective - still loads of appeals but he gave absolutely nothing, the difference was incredible. And the batsman in that day was Sir Alastair Cook who went on to score his first test century. I told him that story a few years later and he had a good chuckle about it!

 

[Bodian]

Gilchrist was so likeable it was hard to believe he was an Australian cricketer

He was likeable. But I must admit my heart used to sink whenever he walked out to bat. We'd have got them to something like 100-5, and yet you knew it was all hopeless as he would take the game away from us, yet again.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Were they were breaking any laws/rules, if not why are they taking disciplinary action? No laws againt being rude to cheats. Also looks like the Australian players instigated the actual "confrontation "

I think you’ve missed the sarcasm in my response….

 

[5Ways Gull]

I think you’ve missed the sarcasm in my response….

Oh ok sorry, I thought I heard that they were taking action

 

[St Leonards Seagull]

The spirit of the game? So Lyon gets injured, self inflicted and is allowed by the rules to have a substitute fielder. That's ok, no problem with that. He is though fit enough to bat, the Aussies needed the runs didn't they, but in my book if you can bat then you can also field. Substitute fielder is allowed to field at short leg a key catching position. No objection from Stokes (He could have had him at long leg but the spirit came in to play) and remember that both Smith and Warner always play in the spirit of the game.
Bit late now but we need to toughen the approach towards them. Finally there should be a new rule introduced which stops the Aussies from getting contracts in the year up to a home series here. Sussex have had Travis Head and Smith playing over the last two seasons here. Allowing them to get used to English conditions is madness. When the England team play in Australia they get at best a couple of games against inferior teams then straight up to Brisbane for the 1st test.

Travis head? We had someone by that name at Sussex. The one that plays for Australia looks far better, should have signed him.

 

[Diablo]

Sounds as if I`m the only English person along with Scyld Berry to have no problem with stumping !!

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Oh ok sorry, I thought I heard that they were taking action

They are, but my point is, it was hardly the end of the world, shouting “shameful”, and questioning whether they are playing ‘in the spirit of the game’. It looked like any confrontation was initiated by the opportunistic b@stards, I mean Australians.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Sounds as if I`m the only English person along with Scyld Berry to have no problem with stumping !!

That's your choice, but it remains that the whole thing is against the spirit of the game.

Interesting the angle that a few of the Aussie papers took, suggesting 'win at all costs' might not be the way forward.

 

[zefarelly]

Sounds as if I`m the only English person along with Scyld Berry to have no problem with stumping !!

I'm not a fan of the win at any cost methodology, but Bairstow was being an arrogant twat, they said as much on TMS and all agreed With each other.

TBH, if he'd not been given out, he'd have probably got 30-35 and we'd have still lost. Even if he'd got 50 we'd have lost as Stokes and Broad wouldn't have been so pissed off about it.

England have a habit of acting like its still 1860 when they're not quite good enough and pretending to be gentlemen. See also football, tennis, egg chasing, car racing. . . . Anything with prize money basically.

 

[timbha]

I'm not a fan of the win at any cost methodology, but Bairstow was being an arrogant twat, they said as much on TMS and all agreed With each other.

TBH, if he'd not been given out, he'd have probably got 30-35 and we'd have still lost. Even if he'd got 50 we'd have lost as Stokes and Broad wouldn't have been so pissed off about it.

Yep, Bairstow was careless but what if he’d scored 100?

 

[Eeyore]

 

[mikeyjh]

Great riposte Ben!

Funny thing about their reaction, I don't think anyone is whingeing about the result, we just think you're a bunch of c****s for what you did.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

None of this would have happened if we'd picked Foakes to keep wicket.

 

[zefarelly]

None of this would have happened if we'd picked Foakes to keep wicket.

Can he carry twats 50 yards in a bear hug?

asking for the security services.