Gilchrist

[moomba]

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]

Goes to show that the best form of technology is still honesty.

 

[rednugget]

So what if he gets given out and he hasn't hit it, should he just stay there?

 

[irish]

bet he wouldnt have been the hero if the aussies lost !!!

 

[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

 

[Port01]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Becker]

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]

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]

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

 

[jim440]

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

 

[moomba]

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

 

[Port01]

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]

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]

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.

 

[noodle]

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]

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]

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

 

[bunsen burner]

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]

I admire it greatly. But I wouldn't have done it.

 

[shiva25]

I wonder if he would have walked if the aussies were 9 for and needed another 20 runs to win the game.

 

[GoEagles]

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]

Of course Gilly would get the final say. The batsman can walk off at any stage he wants. He is basically just retiring.

 

[Katthawk]

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.