View Full Version : Gilchrist
It wasn't clear from the replay, and I have heard a couple of differing opinions on this, but if Gilchrist did walk after being given not out, he deserves all the credit in the world.
Hopefully, that could be the first step toward a bit of sportsmanship getting back into the game.
Moomba
Malibu#27
19 Mar 2003, 11:52
Goes to show that the best form of technology is still honesty.
rednugget
19 Mar 2003, 11:53
So what if he gets given out and he hasn't hit it, should he just stay there?
bet he wouldnt have been the hero if the aussies lost !!!
EagleBlue
19 Mar 2003, 12:11
It appears Gilchrist walked because he believed he had hit the ball and that the umpire would have given him out. He did not realize the umpire had given him not out. His face in the dressing room a few overs after he was given out would seem to suggest that
Originally posted by EagleBlue
It appears Gilchrist walked because he believed he had hit the ball and that the umpire would have given him out. He did not realize the umpire had given him not out. His face in the dressing room a few overs after he was given out would seem to suggest that
He still walked, even if he didn't realise he had been given not out.
Batsman do not walk on the assumption they will be given out.
I don't know why there are many people trying as hard as they can to make it not look like a sporting gesture (not specifically referring to you, but some media reports I have read).
knuckles
19 Mar 2003, 13:16
Originally posted by moomba
Hopefully, that could be the first step toward a bit of sportsmanship getting back into the game.
Moomba
Appropriate since the game was b/w two teams have done much to take sportsmanship out of the game.
Wicked Lester
19 Mar 2003, 13:18
Interesting - has he actually said publicly that he walked only bacuse he assumed the umpire would give him out anyway? That is to say, he didn't hear the 'not out' call?
Must admit I was really torn on this one. If it was a 'statement' then good on him in one sense but I'd have preferred him to do it against the Windies or at least a side that might reciprocate such a gesture - not in a world Cup semi final. I wonder what Ponting thought? Tugga would definitely not approve.
Scenario: Gilchrist is batting in the final, 50 runs to get in 9 overs, he plays and misses at a ball but the Indians appeal and he is given out ....... does he just tell the umpire he didn't hit it and keeps batting? I don't think so!! So why take it upon himself to do the umpiring last night?
We have umpires to decide whether a batsman is out or not, the players should just play the game.
On a lighter side, if a player is given out and he stands at the crease, he is fined for disention. Can Gilchrist be fined for disagreeing with an umpire's decision by walking?
knuckles
19 Mar 2003, 14:11
Originally posted by Wicked Lester
Interesting - has he actually said publicly that he walked only bacuse he assumed the umpire would give him out anyway? That is to say, he didn't hear the 'not out' call?
Must admit I was really torn on this one. If it was a 'statement' then good on him in one sense but I'd have preferred him to do it against the Windies or at least a side that might reciprocate such a gesture - not in a world Cup semi final. I wonder what Ponting thought? Tugga would definitely not approve.
I'm sure I read somewhere that the team rule was never to walk, but wait for ump verdict. Nothing untoward, just good discipline.
shiva25
19 Mar 2003, 14:17
I thought the replay indicated that he hadnt hit it but i guess he would know better than me although i still think he should have waited for the umpires decision before walking
Irresponsible of him in the extreme.
That sort of crap could have cost us the World Cup!
Does anyone else think it's weird that he would walk considering:
a) He was dead-set rifled against New Zealand
b) The Sri Lankans, as well as being the biggest whingers in world cricket, push the boundries of sportmanship to the limit. Are now worse than the Pakis.
c) Bevan got rifled about 1 1/2 hrs later
Oh well, maybe not quite the sporting gesture I had hoped for. :(
Shame that, IMO the game is much worse for the fact that a batsman walking is so unusual it is a topic of discussion.
Moomba
Originally posted by jim440
c) Bevan got rifled about 1 1/2 hrs later
Bevan hit it, even if he didnt feel it, there was a fair deviation.
Gilchrist got a shocker against NZ though I agree.
Mudholian
19 Mar 2003, 15:35
Give him the benefit of the doubt, and rather than calling it naive, stupid, irresponsible, or undisciplined, just mark it down as an example of his character and the Australian sporting ethos.
EagleBlue
19 Mar 2003, 18:24
Originally posted by Port01
He still walked, even if he didn't realise he had been given not out.
Batsman do not walk on the assumption they will be given out.
I don't know why there are many people trying as hard as they can to make it not look like a sporting gesture (not specifically referring to you, but some media reports I have read).
Hey it wasnt my opinion !!!! I am just referring to what Ponting said after the match and I quote
" Talking to Gilchrist, he said he didn't hear Rudi Koertzen say `not out'. He knew he got a bit of bat on it and didn't bother looking around at the umpire".
I personally think it was a very sporting thing to do, however I do not agree with it.
the commentry team on ABC radio where saying that it was wrong of Gilchrist to walk as it made the umpire look bad. what that all about?
Bombers14
19 Mar 2003, 18:33
Well it was good Sportsmanship and he obviously hit the ball but I dont think that he should have walked at such a stage. Luckily the aussies won. I have to admitt that I wouldn't have walked.
Im not throwing my wicket away in the semi final of the world cup.
Grave Danger
19 Mar 2003, 19:05
Now he's so embarrassed at what he's done (probably after a getting a bollocking from Ponting) that he's blaming it all on Nasser Hussein and Michael Vaughan :rolleyes:
bunsen burner
19 Mar 2003, 20:03
I don't like the idea of walking. If you stand your ground you will win some and you will lose some - they will even out in the end. If you walk, you don't get anything back for all the times you are wrongly given out.
A nice touch of sportsmanship, but it isn't as if everyone else from the opposition will walk. That's just putting yourself at a distinct disadvantage.
CharlieG
19 Mar 2003, 20:15
I admire it greatly. But I wouldn't have done it.
shiva25
19 Mar 2003, 20:55
I wonder if he would have walked if the aussies were 9 for and needed another 20 runs to win the game.
GoEagles
20 Mar 2003, 00:08
What would have happened if Rudi called Gilchrist back? Would Gilchrist get the final say in if he stays or goes, or does the umpire's ruling force the player to remain batting?
Kenny_01
20 Mar 2003, 01:22
Of course Gilly would get the final say. The batsman can walk off at any stage he wants. He is basically just retiring.
Katthawk
20 Mar 2003, 01:40
I don't get why this is such an issue. There are constant arguments about whether the umpire is right or wrong. As for the case about being a run down and last wicket etc, isn't that about sportsmanship. Nit picking at the worst. As for next time, let's hope a few others think a bit more carefully instead of displaying petulant behaviour. I do actually understand the game btw.
spring6
20 Mar 2003, 01:56
Chappel is credited with starting the idea of batsmen on the world stage not "walking". he made it team policy and to the best of my knowlegde it has remained so ever since. Every other country followed suit and I have some sympathy with the attitude that it is not the players decision. Think Gilly just thought he was a gonner. But if people want to make out it was good old australian sportmanship then fair enough (seems a bit odd tho when to all accounts we started the not walking thing)
This has got me a bit confused. It looked to me that Gilchrist stood there for a few seconds before walking, and I'm sure he turned to look at the umpire before he walked, too. He must have known that any contact was slight and that he had a chance of being given not out. Regardless of what was said after the game, it looked to me like a piece of good sportsmanship.
If so, then good on him. I can't believe that anyone could seriously criticise him for acting within the spirit of the game.
There's a serious flaw with rabbiting on about the bad sportsmanship of Sri Lanka and Pakistan, while actively promoting it anongst your own country's sportsmen.
goaldrush
20 Mar 2003, 08:29
Gilly is known to be a good sport. Good on him for walking off.
*gives greaso to all who are bad sports*
Go Aussies
Jars458
20 Mar 2003, 09:46
A batsmen should not be required to walk.
If he does though - he should be applauded for it regardless of the circumstances.
I never walk personally as I have made 93 carrer runs in 54 innings - I need all the help i can get!!!!
Wicked Lester
20 Mar 2003, 09:54
Just a thought - if the umpire gives you not out and you walk, have you retired?
Originally posted by Wicked Lester
Just a thought - if the umpire gives you not out and you walk, have you retired?
And as such, can you come back on if the team is all out?!?!
If you retire, you can't come back in, no matter what. You can return to the crease (at the fall of a wicket) only if you retire hurt.
Originally posted by Dean3
If you retire, you can't come back in, no matter what. You can return to the crease (at the fall of a wicket) only if you retire hurt.
I believe that is incorrect. If your retire unhurt you can only enter after all wickets have fallen. If your retire hurt, you can re enter at the fall of any wicket.
As for Gilchrist walking when given not out, I'd have been p***ed off if I was given out. The replays weren't very conclusive and the Sri Lankan's didn't make a big fuss over the appeal.
I can recall two instances in Junior Cricket where I got the faintest nick yet no one appealled. I held my ground and grinned a the bowler. Didn't help, I make Jars look like Bradman.:D
Unwritten_Law
20 Mar 2003, 11:14
Gilchrist might have a few decisions on credit now. Say in the final he gets a very fine snick through to the keeper and stands his ground. Umpire doesn't know which way to go but being the serial walkist Gilchrist is he gets the benefit of the doubt. That shouldn't happen but whos to say it wouldn't? Might be enough to sway the decision one way or the other.
Originally posted by Port01
He still walked, even if he didn't realise he had been given not out.
Batsman do not walk on the assumption they will be given out.
I don't know why there are many people trying as hard as they can to make it not look like a sporting gesture (not specifically referring to you, but some media reports I have read).
Actually the papers this morning said that Gilly was aware he had been given not out. Regardless me thinks he shouldn't have walked, just stand your ground and let the umps make the decision like Vaughn and Hussain did. Hopefully the public doesn't expect him to walk everytime now.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DEVO
[B]I believe that is incorrect. If your retire unhurt you can only enter after all wickets have fallen. If your retire hurt, you can re enter at the fall of any wicket.
Well, no. Technically a batsman retiring unhurt can only resume his innings with the consent of the opposing captain. But what captain at international level is going to allow that? There's nothing in the rules that says this has to be at the fall of the penultimate wicket.
It's quite common for 'retired' batsmen to resume an innings at park/junior level, but it's not permitted in ODI or 1st class/Test level, unless in the above (very unlikely) circumstances.
Originally posted by Dean3
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DEVO
[B]I believe that is incorrect. If your retire unhurt you can only enter after all wickets have fallen. If your retire hurt, you can re enter at the fall of any wicket.
Well, no. Technically a batsman retiring unhurt can only resume his innings with the consent of the opposing captain. But what captain at international level is going to allow that? There's nothing in the rules that says this has to be at the fall of the penultimate wicket.
It's quite common for 'retired' batsmen to resume an innings at park/junior level, but it's not permitted in ODI or 1st class/Test level, unless in the above (very unlikely) circumstances.
He didn't retire, he gave himself out. Look in the scorebook.
Absolutely disgraceful performance by Gilchrist. Should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Surprising that the match referee didn't report him. Lucky not to be outed for the Final.
Doesn't he realise that this is a professional sport? If everyone acted like he did, there would be no reason for slow-mo replays. Think how many technical people at Channel 9 would be out of work. Totally irresponsible. He just didn't think it through. Is it any wonder he lost the Test vice-captaincy?
Kenny_01
20 Mar 2003, 18:25
Originally posted by Dean3
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DEVO
[B]I believe that is incorrect. If your retire unhurt you can only enter after all wickets have fallen. If your retire hurt, you can re enter at the fall of any wicket.
Well, no. Technically a batsman retiring unhurt can only resume his innings with the consent of the opposing captain. But what captain at international level is going to allow that? There's nothing in the rules that says this has to be at the fall of the penultimate wicket.
It's quite common for 'retired' batsmen to resume an innings at park/junior level, but it's not permitted in ODI or 1st class/Test level, unless in the above (very unlikely) circumstances.
Yeah, you're right. If a player retires when he is not hurt, he can't return.
GhostofJimJess
20 Mar 2003, 19:32
My first thoughts on the matter were how odd it was that Gilly was getting so much publicity for walking ... I mean, Brian Lara's being doing it for years - EVERY time. So much so, nobody even really notices him doing it nowadays.
But then I put it into the context of the Australian cricket culture, and then I realized just how astounding, and how admirable, Adam's gesture was.
It's all relative, I guess.
Originally posted by Wicked Lester
Just a thought - if the umpire gives you not out and you walk, have you retired?
There was an Australian cricketer in the 1960s, 1970s named Graeme Watson. He was playing for Western Australia in the early 70s when he thought he nicked a ball and walked from the ground.
The unpire had given him not out, so he approached the scorers and the official dismissal was "retired".
In Gilchrist's situation, I think the umpire gave him out after he walked, so he would be out "caught".
Kenny_01
21 Mar 2003, 07:53
Originally posted by Becker
There was an Australian cricketer in the 1960s, 1970s named Graeme Watson. He was playing for Western Australia in the early 70s when he thought he nicked a ball and walked from the ground.
The unpire had given him not out, so he approached the scorers and the official dismissal was "retired".
In Gilchrist's situation, I think the umpire gave him out after he walked, so he would be out "caught".
It doesn't matter what the decision was, he wouldn't be allowed on back on the ground.
Gilchrist's innings - his call. And it certainly wasn't a case of him not knowing what the umpire thought. He turned to Shepherd who shrugged that he didn't know. I'm not going to say what I would have done or think he should have done as I don't play in games with high stakes. I always walk when I know I'm out but I only play games which are little more than social or very low suburban league level. But I say good on him, and the fact that it was at an early stage in the innings should have shut up the nay-sayers who reckon he is just trying to get a reputation for not walking so he can trade on it later. But I see that hasn't stopped David Hookes.