23 Nov 2004 07:16:21
James Midolo
My theory about walking

I don't know if this idea has been mentioned before, but I have my own idea
about what should happen with bad umpiring decisions and so forth.

I think that umpires should not be able to make any dismissal decisions,
except for LBW, but they can still offer their own opinion on the matter. I
think that the ICC should change the laws and whatever in Test and One-Day
cricket to allow batsmen to stand their ground after been given out by the
umpire. The third umpire should look at the decision as quickly as possible,
and they should suspend the batsman for at least 3 matches for standing
their ground if they are clearly out when given out by the field umpire. For
instance, with the McCullum decision by Bucknor, McCullum probably knew that
he wasn't out. He should have been able to stay at the crease even though
the umpire gave him out. If the third umpire had found that he did nick the
ball, then he should have been suspended for at least 3 matches. On the
other hand, if the umpire says not out in a nicking situation, and the
batsman (like McMillan) nicked it, then that batsman should also be
suspended for 3 matches. Batsmen should have to go if the umpire gives out
LBW, except in the case where the batsman knows that he nicked the ball onto
his pads, and he must indicate this to the umpire, who will allow him to
stay. However if he didn't nick the ball onto the pads, he should be
suspended.

The third umpire would have to rule very quickly to allow the batsman to be
given out. If it takes long enough for balls to be bowled after the
"dismissal", then the batting team should lose say a run per every ball
bowled, or something similar. The captain or the "acting" captain (that has
to be in the pavilion) should also be able to look at the replays and ask
the umpire (by radio) to make the batmsan walk, if it is actually out. This
would be good for the sake of the captains team, and the player. If the
player refuses to walk on the captains advice, the team batting will forfeit
the game.

I wonder what other people think of my idea?




23 Nov 2004 00:08:21
Yuk Tang
Re: My theory about walking

"James Midolo" <[email protected] > wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> I don't know if this idea has been mentioned before, but I have my
> own idea about what should happen with bad umpiring decisions and
> so forth.
>
> I think that umpires should not be able to make any dismissal
> decisions, except for LBW, but they can still offer their own
> opinion on the matter. I think that the ICC should change the laws
> and whatever in Test and One-Day cricket to allow batsmen to stand
> their ground after been given out by the umpire. The third umpire
> should look at the decision as quickly as possible, and they
> should suspend the batsman for at least 3 matches for standing
> their ground if they are clearly out when given out by the field
> umpire. For instance, with the McCullum decision by Bucknor,
> McCullum probably knew that he wasn't out. He should have been
> able to stay at the crease even though the umpire gave him out. If
> the third umpire had found that he did nick the ball, then he
> should have been suspended for at least 3 matches. On the other
> hand, if the umpire says not out in a nicking situation, and the
> batsman (like McMillan) nicked it, then that batsman should also
> be suspended for 3 matches. Batsmen should have to go if the
> umpire gives out LBW, except in the case where the batsman knows
> that he nicked the ball onto his pads, and he must indicate this
> to the umpire, who will allow him to stay. However if he didn't
> nick the ball onto the pads, he should be suspended.
>
> The third umpire would have to rule very quickly to allow the
> batsman to be given out. If it takes long enough for balls to be
> bowled after the "dismissal", then the batting team should lose
> say a run per every ball bowled, or something similar. The captain
> or the "acting" captain (that has to be in the pavilion) should
> also be able to look at the replays and ask the umpire (by radio)
> to make the batmsan walk, if it is actually out. This would be
> good for the sake of the captains team, and the player. If the
> player refuses to walk on the captains advice, the team batting
> will forfeit the game.
>
> I wonder what other people think of my idea?

Long winded. People should walk if they feel like it. If they don't
walk, then they shouldn't complain when others don't either. I can't
remember who it was who whinged endlessly when Vaughan refused to
accept the fielder's word for a catch in front of the wicket, but
IIRC the fielder wasn't known as a walker.


--
Cheers, ymt.


23 Nov 2004 13:55:55
Andrew Dunford
Re: My theory about walking


"Yuk Tang" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

<snip >

> I can't
> remember who it was who whinged endlessly when Vaughan refused to
> accept the fielder's word for a catch in front of the wicket, but
> IIRC the fielder wasn't known as a walker.

No kidding. It was Justin Linger (tm).

Andrew




23 Nov 2004 15:03:48
Ken Wallis
Re: My theory about walking

James Midolo wrote:

> I think that umpires should not be able to make any dismissal
> decisions, except for LBW, but they can still offer their own opinion
> on the matter. I think that the ICC should change the laws and
> whatever in Test and One-Day cricket to allow batsmen to stand their
> ground after been given out by the umpire. The third umpire should
> look at the decision as quickly as possible, and they should suspend
> the batsman for at least 3 matches for standing their ground if they
> are clearly out when given out by the field umpire.

[snip]

The fundamental rules of any popular game need to be equally applicable at
all levels.

In the vast majority of cricket matches that are played there is no third
umpire at all. If my kid's U14 side see test batsmen ignoring the umpire
and waiting for a TMO decision, what do you think they'll want to do when
the umpire raises his finger against them?

Taking this further still, consider what would happen in a test match if
there was a power cut? Should a batsman be not out just because there is a
temporary disruption to the supply of TV pictures on which the third ump can
base a decision? - surely not! TV and other technology may help the game,
but the game does not fundamentally depend on either.

Cheers,

Ken




23 Nov 2004 21:19:13
Jason Derby
Re: My theory about walking

"James Midolo" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
<snip >

In a word:

Crap.

Sorry, but that is what I think of it.

Regards,
Jason




23 Nov 2004 05:47:40
Bob Dubery
Re: My theory about walking

"James Midolo" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I don't know if this idea has been mentioned before, but I have my own idea
> about what should happen with bad umpiring decisions and so forth.
>
> I think that umpires should not be able to make any dismissal decisions,
> except for LBW, but they can still offer their own opinion on the matter. I
> think that the ICC should change the laws and whatever in Test and One-Day
> cricket to allow batsmen to stand their ground after been given out by the
> umpire. The third umpire should look at the decision as quickly as possible,
> and they should suspend the batsman for at least 3 matches for standing
> their ground if they are clearly out when given out by the field umpire.

That would place the batsman in an intolerable situation. There are
too many things he can't know in the heat of the moment. He might know
he got an edge, but did the fielder take it cleanly? Were there the
correct number of fielders in the circle? Did the bowler overstep?

The batsman plays a shot, it gets taken very low down by 1st slip.
VERY low down. Might have touched the turf first? But the batsman is
unsure either way. So should he take the chance and stand? Or should
he play it safe and walk?

It's unworkable. I don't disagree with the notion that in SOME cases
the batsman knows he is out and can help things along if he's that
sort of chap, but the laws have always allowed for doubt and any
remaining doubt must go to the benefit of the batsman. Now it won't.
The change to the game is massive and it will be unfair on the
batsman.


23 Nov 2004 09:29:51
DaRula
Re: My theory about walking

What about this - its a world cup final, australia is bating - they
are about to lose the match to India - number 10 and 11 are batting --
they don't give a damn about whether or not they are really out as its
a final - its ok if they don't play a few other matches.

:-)

What then?? A replay - sorry the theory has a lot of gaping holes in
it.

DaRula


24 Nov 2004 09:12:57
Andrew Dunford
Re: My theory about walking


"James Midolo" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

<snip >

> The third umpire should look at the decision as quickly as possible,
> and they should suspend the batsman for at least 3 matches for standing
> their ground if they are clearly out when given out by the field umpire.

Any system which would see McMillan miss the next three matches must have
some merit.

> For
> instance, with the McCullum decision by Bucknor, McCullum probably knew
that
> he wasn't out. He should have been able to stay at the crease even though
> the umpire gave him out. If the third umpire had found that he did nick
the
> ball, then he should have been suspended for at least 3 matches. On the
> other hand, if the umpire says not out in a nicking situation, and the
> batsman (like McMillan) nicked it, then that batsman should also be
> suspended for 3 matches. Batsmen should have to go if the umpire gives out
> LBW, except in the case where the batsman knows that he nicked the ball
onto
> his pads, and he must indicate this to the umpire, who will allow him to
> stay. However if he didn't nick the ball onto the pads, he should be
> suspended.

<snip >

> I wonder what other people think of my idea?

You haven't dealt adequately with the fielding side. If an lbw appeal is
declined, every member of the fielding team who appealed should be suspended
for three matches - that'd soon stop the practice of players appealing when
they're in no position to judge the line. It would also give rise to the
fielding position of specialist appealer: this would be a member of the
public who can't bat and bowl, but has a very loud voice and can be replaced
for the next match when he inevitably falls foul of the disciplinary code.

Andrew




23 Nov 2004 21:47:44
sdf
Re: My theory about walking


"Andrew Dunford" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Yuk Tang" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> <snip>
>
>> I can't
>> remember who it was who whinged endlessly when Vaughan refused to
>> accept the fielder's word for a catch in front of the wicket, but
>> IIRC the fielder wasn't known as a walker.
>
> No kidding. It was Justin Linger (tm).
>
Oh tht's good. Well worth the tm.




24 Nov 2004 08:07:03
Calvin
Re: My theory about walking


"Andrew Dunford" <[email protected] > wrote

>. It would also give rise to the
> fielding position of specialist appealer: this would be a member of the
> public who can't bat and bowl, but has a very loud voice and can be
replaced
> for the next match when he inevitably falls foul of the disciplinary code.

I can think of several asc residents well-qualified for such a role.

cheers,
Calvin
"No Kenneth Left Behind"





25 Nov 2004 06:48:05
ej
Re: My theory about walking

I think your idea makes the whole dismissal scenario more stressful. Will he
take the decision or will he go to court (3rd umpire) - it is like an
appeals process. The simplicity of the umpire on the ground making the call
is the best - what else would it extend to - would he consult on wides, no
balls?
The umpire will get it wrong some times as do batsmen and bowlers - its the
"uncertainty of sport" - also a good reason not to walk ... some could argue
that the walking is actually disrespecting the umpire who is there to make
the decision.

"James Midolo" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>I don't know if this idea has been mentioned before, but I have my own idea
>about what should happen with bad umpiring decisions and so forth.
>
> I think that umpires should not be able to make any dismissal decisions,
> except for LBW, but they can still offer their own opinion on the matter.
> I think that the ICC should change the laws and whatever in Test and
> One-Day cricket to allow batsmen to stand their ground after been given
> out by the umpire. The third umpire should look at the decision as quickly
> as possible, and they should suspend the batsman for at least 3 matches
> for standing their ground if they are clearly out when given out by the
> field umpire. For instance, with the McCullum decision by Bucknor,
> McCullum probably knew that he wasn't out. He should have been able to
> stay at the crease even though the umpire gave him out. If the third
> umpire had found that he did nick the ball, then he should have been
> suspended for at least 3 matches. On the other hand, if the umpire says
> not out in a nicking situation, and the batsman (like McMillan) nicked it,
> then that batsman should also be suspended for 3 matches. Batsmen should
> have to go if the umpire gives out LBW, except in the case where the
> batsman knows that he nicked the ball onto his pads, and he must indicate
> this to the umpire, who will allow him to stay. However if he didn't nick
> the ball onto the pads, he should be suspended.
>
> The third umpire would have to rule very quickly to allow the batsman to
> be given out. If it takes long enough for balls to be bowled after the
> "dismissal", then the batting team should lose say a run per every ball
> bowled, or something similar. The captain or the "acting" captain (that
> has to be in the pavilion) should also be able to look at the replays and
> ask the umpire (by radio) to make the batmsan walk, if it is actually out.
> This would be good for the sake of the captains team, and the player. If
> the player refuses to walk on the captains advice, the team batting will
> forfeit the game.
>
> I wonder what other people think of my idea?
>