Forum

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.

The postings about non-nationals miss my point - possibly deliberately(?) - i wouldn't accept that I'm against change but when we see the effect that they have had in other sports in Ireland I feel that I am justified in my comments. Or perhaps my idea of Cricket Ireland offering contracts to those guys who have gone to England to entice them back may be too progressive. Could anyone confirm if there is any rule that would prevent the likes of young Mr, Joyce from representing Ireland even for a short time should he return? On the question of rules - what about a change to the NCU "non-declaration" rule. I have seen a couple of games in the past year involving 2 seriously mismatched sides. It can't have been much fun for a young Larne 2s side (not counting Esler!) conceding over 400 a couple of weeks ago. Now how's that for being progressive.

And I am sure if the batsmen who did not nick the ball and were given out or got a bad LBW the fielders should call them back in the spirit of cricket! Harden up lads. You win some you lose some and if you fall for the antics of somebody messing around more fool you! (Probably not a quote that would assist my MCC membership!)

It will be interesting to see if umpires will take appropriate action against those batsmen who choose to stand on when they have clearly edged a ball (complete with splinters) and been caught behind? surely this is not within the spirit of the game either as they are blatently trying to chance their arm. Yes umpires are there to do a job and batsmen are entitled to wait for a decision. Unfortunately there are many aspects of cricket these days where people involved are not entering into the 'spirit' of the game although could this not be said about many sports?! Maybe if players didn't have the opportunity to be in the shop window for the irish team / county scene then the game in ireland may not be quite so cut throat!...obviously this cannot be helped!

Just to pick up on your post there ed i remember many years ago watching jack russell keep wicket in a test match. He took the ball down the leg side and followed this up immediately with the words s**t chase it. The unsuspecting batsman promptly took a couple of steps down the wicket looking for a run presuming jack had deflected the ball down to fine leg. Jack took the bails off end of story. Many would consider this an extremely smart piece of cricket and as far as i know jack russell was not hauled up on this. Surely it is up to the batsmen to be aware of where the ball is? If unions are going to clamp down on this then should they not clamp down harder on the rules which are fairly simple to understand? ie the rule regarding excessive appealing. I can think of one or two teams where excessive appealing is the norm. It seems umpires will not enforce this rule unless foul language is used or severe dissent is shown towards an 'incorrect' decision.