Is Ian Bell a cheat?

[JimDocker]

I'll go with a definite no.

There's a system in place and he's allowed to use it. What if it was a no-ball? I've seen the West Indies reserve their appeals for Gayle and Chanderpaul, even if there was no real justification to refer a decision.

If you're 7 or 8 down in the final session of a Test, facing defeat, you should be referring decisions.

Just like in tennis. If you have a challenge or two remaining, say during a tie-break, use it. You may be fairly sure you're wrong, but why let the challenge go to waste.

I don't like batsmen walking. Batsmen are there to make runs, bowlers to get them out, umpires to make the decisions.

Yep - I see no reson for any batsman to walk in this day and age. The chance of getting the decision right is higher than ever.

I remember when players used to walk. It was a wonderful thing back in the days when cricket was a by word for fair play. Nowadays - with technology in place to minimise poor decisions, walking is a bit silly.

Frankly - sour grapes thread !

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

How do people know he hit the ball? He might have felt he didnt hit it but was asking Prior if he thought there would be enough evidence to overturn the decision.

I'd wait to hear what he has to say first before judging his guilt

He got interviewed after todays game and was asked if he hit it he said " I didnt feel anything on the bat i walked over to prior to ask his opinion and he said he wasnt sure so i asked for a referral"

 

[dumb]

yes, but only for the purpose of needling poms. it's all we've got

 

[Alpha1]

Are Ponting, Clarke and S. Smith cheats?

 

[apollo_creed]

How is it Bell's fault?

Poor umpiring and nothing else.

Maybe he didnt think he hit it? That's what he's said and I have no reason not to believe him.

Things happen very quickly out there and it was a faint edge. (which hot spot confirmed)

Sadly for Bell he doesn't have supersonic hearing but it he wasn't sure if he hit it then he has every right to use something that's there. If he was sure he hit it, he wouldn't have used it.

Take your frustration out on the poor decision made with the benefit of technology. Not Bell.

 

[mattymac]

players have worked out that faint edges don't show up on hotspot. if they have a referral in the bag they will now always use it because chances are more than good they'll get an extra life

i really don't know why the third umpire isn't alllowed to use snicko

as for aleem dar, i don't know what the point of batsmen getting referrals is if it isn't to get decisions overturned. dar says out, bell says prove it, dar can't prove it so decision is overturned

how can it work any other way? dar says out, bell says prove it, dar can't prove it but says you're out anyway???

doesn't take players long to work new rules out and abuse them. technology just isn't there yet.

once again, the denial of snicko to the third ump baffles me. snicko clearly showed he was out

bell was guilty as sin and he knew it, but what do you expect from poms?

 

[juddsentant517]

I don't like batsmen walking. Batsmen are there to make runs, bowlers to get them out, umpires to make the decisions.

This x100. The umpires are payed to make these decision. If they get the decision wrong, it is at their prerogative, not the batsmen.

 

[SebastianVettel]

Maybe he didnt think he hit it?

I've never edged one, no matter how light, and not known. The batsman always knows whether he's hit the ball or not. You can feel it.

Hotspot is just blatantly flawed technology. Overall it's been a positive, but if it's getting decisions wrong that are blatantly obvious to the naked eye, then it shouldn't be being used.

 

[rocker_oz33]

Ian bell is no cheat dump thread.it should be re-named to did the ump make the wrong call thread clearly it the ump who made the wrong call get over it.

 

[Dagger5]

I can guarantee those same people calling Bell a cheat would not of called Symonds a cheat when he had an even larger edge and didn't acknowledge it against India in Sydney.

Its all well and good when it goes our way but as soon as it happens against us then its the end of the world.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

If you hit the ball and are given out, are you not cheating the system by asking for a referral in the hope that their will be no evidence?

Not at all. Its within the rules, therefore not cheating.
If he had still been given out, the captain should be kicking his bollocks when he gets back to dressing room for wasting a valuable referral.
In this case, however, I don't think he hit it, and even if he did the touch would have been so fine that he may well not have known.

 

[SebastianVettel]

I can guarantee those same people calling Bell a cheat would not of called Symonds a cheat when he had an even larger edge and didn't acknowledge it against India in Sydney.

Except Symonds wasn't given out and then abused a system designed to overturn wrong decisions not correct ones.

 

[Cooldude]

How can you be called a cheat for doing something you are entitled to do under the current system?

That's what can happen when you give players the power to challenge umpire decisions

 

[Dipper]

I've never edged one, no matter how light, and not known.

I'm not saying that you're wrong but you wouldn't know would you?

I mean you only know the ones that you know that you know if you know what I mean.

Anyway as for Bell being a cheat he probably saw Hughes claim that catch and thought if that's how you want to play it, I know that if I saw the opposition claim a catch like that I'd give them nothing.

 

[fairdinkum]

I've never edged one, no matter how light, and not known. The batsman always knows whether he's hit the ball or not. You can feel it.

Oh yeah. How many times have you faced blokes bowling up to 140km? Or in a stadium holding umpteen thousand fans, many of them chanting? How many of those edges have you 'known' about?

 

[superfreak]

Bell is guilty but Dar is the one the focus should be on. Was told there is no evidence to support a not out call, but also no evidence to support an out call thus his original decision had to stand.

Funny that he has been the umpire at the centre of every contentious decision over the past two tests. He has most of them right, but this he got horribly wrong.

 

[beatnik]

I thought Phil Hughes claiming that 'catch ' was a lot worse. He should have a word to Greg Dyer about what happens to your career when you start doing that sort of thing.

you're a joke, i have no problem with Hughes or Prior referring 50/50s this series

is Bell a cheat? no because he hasn't broken any rules

however, the peanut gallery on this board who hounded the Australian cricket team after those ridiculous accusations of cheating by the Indian cricket team for the imagined crime of 'not walking' are very silent...

...you know who you are

 

[Ray Nolan]

Is every Australian batsman post-1970 bar Gilchrist a cheat too?

Seriously, Aussie Cricket fans don't half bleat when the shoe is on the other foot!

Well done Bell on a great century, as a Warwickshire man I'm delighted he's finally showing everyone here how good we've known he is all along.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

There is no way a batsman would bother referring it if he thought he'd nicked it. What a waste of a referral that would be. This cheat word gets thrown about too often. Apparently Botham is accusing Hughes of being a cheat for claiming that catch - he clearly wansn't sure, got referred, not out. Bell didn't think he nicked it, asked fellow bat in case he's missed a nick, fellow bat says he reckons no nick, refers it, not out. What's the drama here.

The idea a class batsman in control of his game and his side in a dominating position would bother refering a decision when he thought he nicked it... absurd.

There was a similar one in an earlier test in the Aussies favour, although the umpy initially gave that one not out. No hotspot but a clear nick on snicko.

 

[Phone]

Phone's brain: Come on Phone. Check the cricket board. Some good discussion might be taking place. The place isn't as bad as you think it is. They handle losing with grace and always appreciate the other team's performance.
Phone: Oh ok

Upon clicking and reading the most recently posted in thread, Is Ian Bell a cheat?

Phone's brain: Sorry Phone. I really am.



Really, what the **** guys? He hit it. So what. He backed himself to get away with it. Good for him. A cheat. Pfffft.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

How can he be a cheat if what he did is within the rules of the game?

No different to Hughes claiming a catch that bounced - the rules state you are allowed to ask the umpire if the batsmen is out - it's up to the umps to decide if you caught it or not.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

Is every Australian batsman post-1970 bar Gilchrist a cheat too?

Seriously, Aussie Cricket fans don't half bleat when the shoe is on the other foot!

Well done Bell on a great century, as a Warwickshire man I'm delighted he's finally showing everyone here how good we've known he is all along.

Bell was given out correctly, then used flawed technology to save himself when he knew he hit it..
He is a cheat..

 

[borgsta2006]

Referals are part of the game. Bell used it successfully. Morally wrong perhaps but he got a one up, it is not cheating.

 

[sherb]

Is every Australian batsman post-1970 bar Gilchrist a cheat too?

I didn't know the UDRS was around that long. Because "walking" quite clearly isn't the issue being discussed here.

Seriously, Aussie Cricket fans don't half bleat when the shoe is on the other foot!

And English supporters don't half sing a different tune over the issue of alleged poor sportsmanship when one of their own is involved, do they?

 

[davis_756]

Gilly would have walked for that even if he was given not out while Bell knew he hit it and was given out and had the balls to appeal it knowing faint nicks don't appear on hot spot.

Speaks volume for the pathetic character of the bloke, low life who will be booed for the rest of his career.