i think writer had manage to point the rule of law but forget the rule of the game. In any game there is always rule of law & rule of the game both are diffrent and one should use it as per understanding of the game & not the rule itself. Batsman going to pavallion because he thinks he is 'out' is the rule of the game & not rule of law. Whereas batsmen not going to pavillion after giving the 'out' is neither rule of the game nor rule of law. That is it is 100% dissent not going to pavallion. amol
Why should one think that umpires are God? Does he not make mistakes? And more-over what is the guarantee that umpires are not biased? The age factor may also play a part in their decision making. No matter how professional he is, standing in the hot sun for 8-10 hrs is not an easy job. Fatigue will definetely take over and they will not be in a position to make rational decisions, no matter how fit they are shown medically on papers. Neutral umpires or not, the incidence of such decisions are increasing day by day and I think ICC has to look into this matter, or else, the professional cricket would turn into a match of small school going boys around the corner, and will lead to more and more dissent by the players, the way it is happening presently.
The writer is a bit harsh on the Aussie blokes who rightly upheld the spirit of the game. The Aussies play the game hard no doubt, but this goes to show how they want to beat us fair. Let us applaud them and not ask rhetorical questions of their noble actions.
Umpires are human, and a little sympathy from the players goes a long way in retaining their credibility and stature in a vicious game subject to technological scrutiny.
If "walking" is dissent, then amnesty to criminals is a crime!
Before today, I remembered the Australian Team as one of the most "ungentlemanly" side ever to play cricket. But today, I was amazed to see batsmen walk out of pitch even when given not out. I feel that it is a welcome sign for cricket. It would be even more fitting if all the test teams agreed upon a self-adopted code in which they will practice such gentleman-like behaviour. Such an agreement could also include decreasing the intensity of LBW appeals which many-a-times confuse and force the umpires into making erroneous decisions.
I think this is an article with major shades of pessimism. Why should you think about things which only imply negative thinking rather than move forward with an element of appreciation for Gilchrist??? Why cannot the author hightlight the old age of MR. David ( Hop @ 111 ) Shepard, who should have been retired long ago if he is a sincere professional. At that age (more than 63 years) how come on earth can he can hear such fine nicks of bat and pad in jampacked and noisy grounds like India without the help of gentlemen like one by name Mr. Adam ( The Walker ) Gilchrist, Kasprowiz ( The Follower )
Hey thats a fine piece of thinking. Good that u chose to write smoething other than who scored how many runs and who took how many wickets and all that routine stuff...
