When the players dont walk,its like "why cant they be honest?", and now when they do their act is being classified as dissent !! I guess they will remain puppets in the hands of the media whatever they do !!
Your article echoed the thoughts I had in the morning exactly. I was just thinking that it would be nice to write a few words, and of course I knew I my article would not be published, least bcos Ido not have the patience to polish it. So it was nicer to see at least my thoughts... So the question is: Will the "all encompassing" ICC also fine them for dissent? Going by the rule book, it should (and that's what exposes the rotten set of rules that they have regarding dissent). All the players are human and as long as they do not publicly ridicule/question/swear at the umpires, they are not bringing "the game into disrepute" just by being emotional (shocked, disappointed, frustrated, angry) at being given out unjustly. In my opinion, its the ICC that's bringing "the game into disrepute" with all its shenanigans... But as they say: who will govern the governors? Abhijeet
It is dissent, but is this form of expressing dissent punishable under cricket rules? I think one can be punished only if he expresses his dissent directly to the umpire. Anyhow, any cricket lover should feel happy that Shepherd has been "exposed" and put in his place. At the same time, a comment made by the TV commentators is very relevant. It was in rererence to the lbw decision against Sehwag in the second innings of the previous test match. There was a silly mid-off in position, and the (Australian) fieldsman would have had a very clear view of the inside-edge that preceded the ball hitting the pad. Why did he not point this out to McGrath or the umpire or to the Austalian captain, and request that the appeal be withdrawn?
Hi, I find the writer's comments a bit too cynical who instead of applauding the fine behavior is questioning it. The writer has to realise that rules(read disagreeing to umpire's decision) is a means to the end (read fair play) and is not an end itself. It should be end goal which everybody should to trying towards and not mere following of of the something written in rule books. Personally when I saw the the Aussies walk, there was a great sense of happiness and awe which engulfed me. That behavior was really commendable and should be appluaded by everyone. This brings in the role of media(read Indian media). I at times think that Indian media thrives on entertainment/speculation more than the end objective(read fair reporting). The media in this case is polluting the postive environment which Aussies have created. Hats of to you guys(Gilly, Kasperwiz, Yuvi). You make me feel great about the game and make me in a sense a beeter sense. Just think what great sight cricket with the players playing fairly. it is articles like these which create controversy out of nothing. The author whoudl mend his ways and go back to see what is true objective of media.
I do not know Hindi language. But from the one vernacular that I know Patwardhan means what is visible like "crystal Clear". I am left to wonder after reading Deepti's Article "Good sportsmanship OR Dissent?" what she is expressing. When an Umpire does not give a Batsman Out when an 'appeal' is made we can not always blame him. After all he might have given the so called 'Benefit of Doubt'. The Question I have for this Author is what happens to the famous quote that many scribes use 'umpires decisions even out' meaning a Player may benefit by a wrong decision which will some time be a leveller for the previous mistake by an Umpire! If a player walks out on 'dicy' issues when will it level? Is it not enough if he walks when his stumps are shattered and the Umpire has not called a No Ball?!!!
I think there is a wrong comparison between showing unhappiness or reluctance to go back and walking when you know that you are out.
A batsman's perception could be different than that of an umpire's. To show disagreement on the umpire's decision is dissent. This can be of any form such as talking abusively, physical violence. In umpire's perception glaring or standing more than few seconds at the crease when given out could be dissent. The meeting with the match referee is to determine whether the uimpire's reporting has been correct.
Now .. the dissent is releated only for being out. When a batsment knows that he is out and he is honestly admitting it, I don't think anything is wrong in that. It may happen at a point where his team doesn't want him to be out, but how many times you have had your vehicle stopped moving just at a point you don't want it to happen ?
Your last paragraph "And while you are pondering the nuances, here is something else to think about: a Gilchrist, say, has now an established reputation for honesty, for fair play. If, tomorrow, he does not walk when there is an appeal (and there is no suggestion of dishonesty here -- he could genuinely think he was not out, though evidence indicates otherwise), will umpires tend to automatically give him the benefit, even when none exists?" exposes the frailty of the situation.
If we accept players' to be geniunely striving for honesty and fair play, then they become the benchmark, not the umpires.
And this goes back to your earlier question "Is this cricket?", and raises other questions.
Its not a show of dissent to walk when you are out. Especially because a lot of times an umpire is giving the batsman the benefit of doubt. He didn't see/hear the nick. If the batsmen knows he's knicked the ball then he should walk. Thats being honest... a quality lost in modern cricket. Batsman who walk should be commmended not chastised.
Kasprowicz should have waited and acted as per the umpire's verdict. One should not take his own decision as final as there will be umpires to decide on these. If every one goes as in the same way as Kasprowicz or Steve Waugh then the very existence of umpires will have no meaning and there may not be any need for the field umpires at all keshavamurthyc
