Please click here to leave a message.
The Ulster Cricketer reserves the right not to publish submissions written under pseudonyms or which make gratuitous personal attacks.
Walkers Club
Beware - there are crafty 'walkers' around (at least when I played) who 'walked' when they obviously thick edged to first slip area. They then bank this and try to establish a reputation as a'walker'. Then justify not walking for thinner edges with a cheery greeting in the bar (a place where players used to go after the match)
"Nile - you know me I would never stand on I'm a Walker!"
PS pretending to throw a ball is n't cheating
re Nick Walker - interesting use of the word "decent" in his posting about not walking! but as Neil says its the way you're brought up. And its worse in games with no official umpires!!
In my experience decisions do even themselves out, and those who don't 'walk' get the biggest shockers going at some point. That’s fine, but the galling part is when they stand and point at the bat (for a poor LBW) or at the pad (for an equally dubious ct behind) like spoilt children, instead of accepting that what goes around comes around!!! The instance of non-walkers is one that I can think of were two wrongs do make a right…
Re Walking/Cheating
I wholly disagree that walking is cheating!
However, batsman feathers one to the keeper - fielding team don't appeal, didn't hear it perhaps.
Walk or not Walk?
Not 1 person reading this who plays at a decent standard would even consider walking off.
Using that rationale - then you are all cheats!
I have heard all the arguments about walking/not walking.
My dad brought us up to play cricket with the ethos that there is no difference being caught behind or caught on the boundary, if you hit it you are out.
If everyone was honest and walked it would make the game much more pleasurable. It would also make the umpires job much easier.
Not walking is cheating, full stop, end of story.
I am sure 99.99% of of cricketers who dont walk, dont cheat in life and dont cheat in business but yet they cheat when they cross the white line.
The dictionary definition of CHEAT is to deceive or practise deceipt, especially for one's own gain
If thats their ethos and they can live with it fine, its just not my ethos
Mark misses the point of my suggestion of the rule change to permit declarations. Such a change would give the "facility" for a declaration which is not currently permitted. There are scenarios where teams down the leagues will travel with 9 or 10 players to fulfill the fixture rather than incur a fine by "crying off". Personally I wouldn't regard scoring 300 and putting the other side out for 40 as a cricket "match" - more a waste of drinking time but then I may be in a minority. On the question of the differing "culture" of rugby & cricket - as I have posted before I feel that there are many lessons for administraters in Cricket Ireland to be learned from what has happened following the introduction of "professional rugby" and its effect on club rugby.
Must say I completely agree with Wayne, over the course of a season you will be on the receiving end of both good/bad decisions! Its just a case of getting on with it!
Wayne
It is very unsatisfactory to see a batsman given out when he didn't hit it. Generally the batsman should be given the benefit of the doubt. If more people walked when they hit the ball however then I think you would find that more people would be given not out when they didn't hit it. It's a strange kind of logic but it is true.
When the ball passes the bat and there is a sound followed by a big appeal then one man knows whether he hit it or not, the batsman.
Batting on when you've been given not out is the equivalent of diving in the penalty box in football. Conning the referee or conning the umpire, take your pick.
I know it is part of the game and you have to accept it but I don't have to like it or condone it.
Hope the season turns around for you soon.
Staffy - clearly a bowlers response! What if it is bat pad and the batsman is given? Every fielder knows he middled it, does he get called back? No. How many times have batsmen been given caught behind when not out and everyone on the field knows it? Bowlers take the wickets and nothing is said. Do batsmen feel aggrieved - witness the chipped bats in the changing room! Thems the breaks and what is the point in ill feeling? That is the beauty of cricket. You win some you lose some, umpires get some right, umpires get some wrong. As for walking as a batsman each to their own but I am sure decisions balance themselves out.
Wayne
In a case of LBW neither the bowler nor the batsman definitely know if it is out so they ask the umpire to decide. When a batsman edges it behind the bowler may be convinced it is out but the umpire makes a decision. In this case however the batsman KNOWS he is out and to stand on is blatant cheating in my book.
Batsmen standing on when everyone but the umpire knows they are out is the biggest source of bad feeling in the game.
Re Rule Book article.
I also feel that the rules governing the leagues and cups within the NCU require some "tweaking". However I would stop short of the "shred the book" approach as the legislation is (aside from the 20 over replay rule) directed to the provision of fair and flexible cricket.
LBW decisions are really starting to get noticed more and more in the games that I have spectated this year. I have seen some awful awful decisions in regards to LBW's, with players being given out more and more regularly on the front foot with big strides in. Is the standard of umpiring slipping? I think so. Are too many umpires being influenced by hawkeye? I think so. Its almost almost impossible to judge an LBW with a big stride in, too much doubt as the ball has too far to travel and with our nations pitches doing a lot of the deck, surely umpires need to stop trying to be the centre of attention and let the players provide the entertainment? What you think guys? Ps. Umpires do a great service to the leagues and fair play to them, but I feel some and this is the minority are getting too trigger happy.
Is anyone following the latest NW saga on the other channel? The question I would ask is "if everything up there is so good and proper why do they have to come on websites to defend themselves?" We've seen enough of NW "supporters" over the years to know how some of them behave.
Andy, Ed Joyce has to serve 4 years before he can switch countries again. As for declarations or non-declarations very few teams are going to declare when they are scoring lots of runs in limited overs. If Larne Seconds got a hammering then welcome to sport. We've all been there. On overseas players I don't think a rugby comparison tells us anything as the two cultures are different.
Jack Russell leg-side stumping
That's top-class work from one of the greatest keepers ever.
How england miss the legend now.
