View Full Version : Katich's dismissal just showed - Walkers are morons
Cooldude
4 Nov 2004, 18:07
Whether you are a walker or not, the umpires will still give wrong decisions to wrongfully dismiss you. Katich did not get anywhere near that one but Rudi Koezten thought he hit it so he gives him out, that's the way it goes
Your luck evens itself up, there are times when you nick it and ump didn't hear it, and you bat on for a ton. Now that if you walk whenever you nick it, and the umps continue to give real bad decisions, then walkers' average will be way down.
It's just dumb to walk, really dumb
Maybe because you have walked before, in an important game, the ump didnt give you out because you didn't walk. So you can't say its dumb, maybe its a ploy, who knows.
29.3 Kumble to Katich, OUT: the conventional leg break,m Katich tries to
play to the legside again, looks like he managed a tickle onto the
pad and then pops up to Kaif at forward short leg, a big appeal by
the Indians and Rudi Koertzen has no hesitation in raising the
Cooldude
4 Nov 2004, 18:17
Katich didn't hit that, nowhere close.
If you think the ump won't give you out because you haven't walked, then the walkers are naive. The umps are there to make decisions, he doesn't care who walks and who doesn't, if he thinks you nicked it you're gone, it's as simple as that.
If you think the ump won't give you out because you haven't walked, then the walkers are naive.
Obviously you didnt hear billy bowdens comments. I admit he aint the greatest ump, but still. He said "I wouldn't give gilly out unless he walked, i trust him" Or something like that.
Cooldude
4 Nov 2004, 18:22
Obviously you didnt hear billy bowdens comments. I admit he aint the greatest ump, but still. He said "I wouldn't give gilly out unless he walked, i trust him" Or something like that.
Then Billy Bowden should be shot, umpires are out there to make decisions, they make the decisions base on their own judgement and what they see, not what the batsmen do.
If umpires stop making decisions just because a few "goodie goodies" walk, then they shouldn't be umpiring.
Lara's been wrongly given out many times, and he's been a walker longer than Gilly.
It's sad when umpires stop making decisions and let the batsmen decide if they're out or not.
Then Billy Bowden should be shot, umpires are out there to make decisions, they make the decisions base on their own judgement and what they see, not what the batsmen do.
If umpires stop making decisions just because a few "goodie goodies" walk, then they shouldn't be umpiring.
Lara's been wrongly given out many times, and he's been a walker longer than Gilly.
It's sad when umpires stop making decisions and let the batsmen decide if they're out or not.
I agree. But you can't bag gilly, he has done so much for this team. The other walkers, werent really batters. Maybe its about changing how other teams view the aussie team. Maybe its about keeping their dignity, who knows.
Cooldude
4 Nov 2004, 18:29
Good on Gilly, he wants to clear his conscious, but by walking, it's doing more damage to the game than it is not to walk. Not only there are selective walkers, but you look real silly when umpire gives you out for a wrong decision anyway. Good on walkers for thinking about their conscious, but at the same time I think they're morons
Just like how I think vegetarians who don't wanna eat animals coz it's so cruel are all morons, I guess, almost the same reasons :)
By walking, gilly is telling the world, i know im out, im no cheat. I have some dignity, if an outfielder says he caught me, he caught me.
I see gilly as someone with a valid opinion on life. I see vegetarians as people who have no idea about life. I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat lettuce!
Adelaide Hawk
4 Nov 2004, 18:43
Batsmen are there to make runs, not umpire the game. If batsmen just bat, bowlers just bowl, and leave the umpiring up to the umpires, then everyone should be happy.
If you get a decision in your favour then you put yor head down and bat. It's not cheating, it is up to the umpire to give a batsman out.
Batsmen are there to make runs, not umpire the game. If batsmen just bat, bowlers just bowl, and leave the umpiring up to the umpires, then everyone should be happy.
If you get a decision in your favour then you put yor head down and bat. It's not cheating, it is up to the umpire to give a batsman out.
I live around of alot of poms, they think the aussies cheat. We know its not cheating, but the rest of the world doesnt.
Cooldude
4 Nov 2004, 18:48
Of course the Poms think we cheat, otherwise how else would we have beaten them for the last 17 bloody years? :rolleyes: As if I care about how a bunch of Poms think about us.
As if I care about how a bunch of Poms think about us.
Maybe gilly does. All people aren't the same.
Karbassiyoon
4 Nov 2004, 18:52
i have to agree that walking is not clever
Gilly didn't walk. Ump didn't give him out. Even though he is not out. Now he is caught, then he walks. Wow.
Cooldude
4 Nov 2004, 18:56
The first one is not out because it was nowhere close, it hit his bloody shoulder FFS! How can the umpire give him out? Rodi started raising his finger on the second one before he even started to walk
Good to see, Rodi, you're making decisions by your judgement, not the batsman's.
The first one is not out because it was nowhere close, it hit his bloody shoulder FFS! How can the umpire give him out? Rodi started raising his finger on the second one before he even started to walk
Good to see, Rodi, you're making decisions by your judgement, not the batsman's.
Im just going by what abc radio said.
Cooldude
4 Nov 2004, 19:10
ABC radio = biase ********
Adelaide Hawk
4 Nov 2004, 19:11
I live around of alot of poms, they think the aussies cheat. We know its not cheating, but the rest of the world doesnt.
The Poms think everyone cheats, and that they are the only people on God's Earth who upholds the principle of fair play ...... of course we all remember Bodyline and the infamous 1972 Headingly Test when Fuserium (sp?) only affected the pitch and not the rest of the ground.
I have followed the game long enough to recall a plethora of English batsmen standing their ground awaiting the umpire's decision, so I cannot believe their indignation when Australian batsmen elect to do the same.
I continue to ask this question .... if it okay for a batsmen to give themselves out, then why can't they give themselves not out? In other words, why can't they just tell the umpire they are not out and elect to stay, even after an umpire has given them out? The answer iis simple ... umpires are the ONLY people with the authority to adjudicate on a batsmen's dismissal.
Why, therefore, do batsmen feel they have the right to walk off, even if an umpire thinks they are not out? I recall in the 1970s, WA batsman Graeme Watson edged a ball and walked.
At the interval, the umpires approached the scorers and told them to alter the mode of dismissal from "caught" to "retired out". Their reasoning was that the umpire considered him to be not out. As such, Watson had forfeited his innings by retiring.
Just play the game, and leave the umpiring to umpires.
It's easy for a player like Gilchrist to walk. His career is not in question, he is a regular member of the Aussie team. However, you cannot expect a player struggling for a place in the team to just walk off, it may be the end of his Test career.
I don't expect someone fighting for a spot to walk. I don't expect anyone to walk, but if they do, i congratulate them.
I see what you guys are saying, and i agree in some parts, but we shouldn't hate gilchrist cause he walks.
We should hate gilchrist if he walks when we are in trouble and in danger of losing the match, but i doubt he would do that.
Well done gilly, you have kept your dignity and kept your average above 53. And you have kept really well behind the stumps ;)
Cooldude
4 Nov 2004, 19:28
Who said they hate Gilly for walking? Good on him for it, no one's criticising him, we're only calling walkers morons for walking, if Gilly wants to walk then good on him, good gesture, but he's just a moron :)
GhostofJimJess
4 Nov 2004, 20:22
Katich did not get anywhere near that one but Rudi Koezten thought he hit it so he gives him out, that's the way it goes
What exactly got you so convinced that he didn't get "anywhere near it"?
All of the vision I've seen has still left me none the wiser.
Certainly you're not going to let the batsman's reaction sway you? Hell, Langer would never be out in that case.
Cooldude
4 Nov 2004, 20:33
What exactly got you so convinced that he didn't get "anywhere near it"?
All of the vision I've seen has still left me none the wiser.
Certainly you're not going to let the batsman's reaction sway you? Hell, Langer would never be out in that case.
Actually, the replays showed that the inside edge was not close to the ball, and there ain't a deflection when the ball passed the bat.
Llike the Hayden one, a similar sorta bat pad, where you can clearly see an inside edge.
No one makes decisions on batsmen's reaction, otherwise Steve Waugh was never out, coz he doesn't even walk if he edges it to third slip until the umpire raises the finger
silky-smooth
4 Nov 2004, 21:35
I would probably be the only batsmen ever to walk on a LBW decision.
But then again, when your backfoot is about 1cm from the middle stump and the ball smashes into it, what else would you do?
I didn't want to stay and watch the finger go up, so when I saw how bloody plumb it was, I was quick to go. Still to this day, I will never know if that umpire would have given me out - but he would have been pretty blind not to.
BTW... I scored 26, so it wasn't like I walked on 99. ;)
Funkalicous
5 Nov 2004, 08:37
I think it's fair enough if you want to stand your ground. Though when you get a nick that carries to second slip and you still stand your ground :eek: (eg. Nassar Hussain), then your a d***head quite frankly!
goaldrush
5 Nov 2004, 08:45
Whether you are a walker or not, the umpires will still give wrong decisions to wrongfully dismiss you. Katich did not get anywhere near that one but Rudi Koezten thought he hit it so he gives him out, that's the way it goes
Your luck evens itself up, there are times when you nick it and ump didn't hear it, and you bat on for a ton. Now that if you walk whenever you nick it, and the umps continue to give real bad decisions, then walkers' average will be way down.
It's just dumb to walk, really dumb Would you prefer the cricketers to get reported for dissent?
Syd Swan
5 Nov 2004, 09:56
Would you prefer the cricketers to get reported for dissent?
Shut up
goaldrush
5 Nov 2004, 12:37
Shut upAnswer the question I have asked. I don't need smartarse comments from you. :mad:
funkyfreo
5 Nov 2004, 13:17
Would you prefer the cricketers to get reported for dissent?
How do you get reported for dissent for not walking? Sure if you hang around after the finger goes up?
Tell you what, us Poms promise to uproot your flimsy Aussie stumps regularly in the Ashes, so walking will not be an issue!!! :D
TigerCraig
5 Nov 2004, 13:24
Would you prefer the cricketers to get reported for dissent?
How is it dissent to wait for a decision ???
Under the laws of cricket, even if your stumps are knocked out of the ground you are not out until the umpire raises his finger (on appeal). If there is no appeal, you cannot be out (unless you choose to walk).