|
Post by missingleg on Jun 10, 2013 18:13:32 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/22846305www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnO45rmaDZQMy only question is this - since the wicketkeeper is to receive a 2 game ban and a fine for trying to cheat, why hasn't the same punishment been handed to the batsman for not walking knowing he edged the ball? You shouldn't have punishments for one sort of cheating but not for batsmen cheating by standing their ground knowing they're out.
|
|
|
Post by swerveman on Jun 10, 2013 20:49:10 GMT
Have I missed something? He wasn't out, was he?
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jun 11, 2013 8:08:33 GMT
You're correct - in this case the batsman was reprieved. Perhaps you were misled by the thread about a batsman refusing to walk - here
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jun 11, 2013 9:54:14 GMT
Too right missingleg, cheating is cheating whether it's claiming a dropped catch, or standing there knowing you have hit the ball and are out. swerveman, where did missingleg mention an incident where this happened? He is just giving his opinion on types of cheating.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 11, 2013 14:00:43 GMT
If the ICC are to start banning players for cheating or trying to cheat, then batsmen should be banned after virtually every match.
Either ban all cheaters or leave it to the umpires on field.
|
|
|
Post by swerveman on Jun 11, 2013 20:12:20 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/22846305www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnO45rmaDZQMy only question is this - since the wicketkeeper is to receive a 2 game ban and a fine for trying to cheat, why hasn't the same punishment been handed to the batsman for not walking knowing he edged the ball? You shouldn't have punishments for one sort of cheating but not for batsmen cheating by standing their ground knowing they're out. Well, sorry and all that, but I was just replying to the first post, not mixing two different threads! ;D
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jun 12, 2013 6:38:30 GMT
swervemanApologies - I made the mistake I 'accused' you of and was misled by the post on a parallel issue! Of course you're right. In general we can't know why a batsman stands his ground. He could know or suspect that it wasn't a fair catch; we'll never know. The essential difference is that the batsman is merely exercising his right to wait for the umpire's decision. In the TV incident, under ICC rules the batsman had the right to ask for a review. He didn't do that because he waited for the consultation and review initiated by the square leg umpire. In my book that's entirely fair and in accordance with the rules in force for the match. On the other hand the keeper wasn't just waiting - he actively tried to get a decision when he should have known that it wasn't out and that's cheating. He fully deserved a ban.
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Jun 13, 2013 3:54:08 GMT
It also raises a completely different issue.
We teach that one umpire should not interfere with the decision of the other umpire. Obviously the umpire with primary jurisdiction may consult his colleague but only if he has doubts.
I get the impression in this case that the initiative to change this decision actually came from Striker's End umpire. Obviously a good thing in this particular case BUT should we alter our teaching?
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Jul 2, 2013 8:13:52 GMT
A small but important distinction is needed here. Acumen states: "the umpire with primary jurisdiction MAY consult his colleague" (my emphasis). However Law 27.6 says he SHALL consult if he "is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see". I think it is worth emphasising that this means we are OBLIGED to consult, even if it turns out the other umpire was not in a better position after all.
|
|