Ramdin never appealed or claimed the catch- watch the replay. The umpire gave it out, Ramdin did not claim the catch or even appeal, where did Ramdin do anything diferent than Broad?
Please wtach the replay and then see what happened with Ramdin, the umpire gave it out the moment he nciked it without knowing whether Ramdin caught if propoerly or not. Why according to your logic should Ramdin be banned? Did he appeal- No? Did he claim the catch - NO.
History repeats itself....in 1987 Chris Broad was persuaded by Graham Gooch to 'walk' after he stood his ground for a minute despite being ruled 'out'. Unfortunately, in 2013 when his son Stuart Broad repeated the family trait, there was no Gooch on the field ..... he was in Dressing Room, as coach! If cricket is to be kept a gentleman's game, only gentlemen should play it!
I do not understand why one should move from the middle of the pitch unless umpires gives the out. Therefore it is the mistake of umpire it is not a players mistake. Now cricket is no more gentlemen game.
Re: Now cricket is no more gentlemen game
by Sameer Bhagwat on Jul 14, 2013 09:15 AM
In other words its ok to copy in exams because other people do it as long as you don't get caught, correct? You will cheat won't you?
Re: Re: Now cricket is no more gentlemen game
by siddhartha xx on Jul 14, 2013 11:15 AM
it is the umpires decision to make. There are time when you are not out and are given out , what then? It would be wrong if he tried to influence the umpire into believing that he is not out knowing fully well that he is out. He simply stood his groud and waited for the final say of umpire. If on many occasions umpires error leads to a batsman being given out then why shouldnt he benefit the other way around as well? . there is no parallel with copying in exam.
Re: Re: Re: Now cricket is no more gentlemen game
by Manish Sharma on Jul 14, 2013 12:01 PM
then why to ban Ramdin? he also did his job by claiming the catch, it is umpires to decide whether out or not. Can't be two set of rules
Re: Re: Re: Now cricket is no more gentlemen game
by Manish Sharma on Jul 14, 2013 12:02 PM
then why to ban Ramdin? he also did his job by claiming the catch, it is umpires to decide whether out or not. Can't be two set of rules
Re: Re: Now cricket is no more gentlemen game
by siddhartha xx on Jul 14, 2013 11:17 AM
every batsman ha stheir own philosophy. and letting the umpire make the call, nothing wrong with that specially since many times u are given out by the same umpiring error.
Re: Now cricket is no more gentlemen game
by akpin on Jul 14, 2013 10:45 AM
They are playing international cricket not galli cricket. He should be suspended atleast one game.
Broad and his father Chris are racist and cheats. Ofcourse after nicking, actually can't be called a nick it was a fat edge it to first slip , how can one morally stay put? Just because an umpire wrongly gives you out sometimes, doen't mean you hsouldn't walk when you are out so blatant. Its a different matter if its a thin edge or lbw or inside edge where you are not sure and leave it to umpires. When you edge to first slip you better walk.
All those who cry moral equivalancy are cheats and you will find many in India who don't mind cheating just becasue they were cheated against.
It doesnt matter how many times you got a wrong decision, if you are out and know you are out , you should walk. Golf is a great example where true spirit is shown.People who play golf call penalty on themselves no matter if they lose the tournament.
Re: Cheating
by siddhartha xx on Jul 14, 2013 11:22 AM
whats the diference betwen a small nick and a large nick if u know its a nick as a batsman? How does the moral burden suddenly increase if its a large nick?
its each bastmans philosophy whether to walk or to let the umpire make the decision. And i dont see anything wrong with it if u consitently believe in it for yourself and in others right to do so too. Broad did not pretend to not have nicked the ball (i believe),he simply waited for the umpires decision. This is quite different even from claiming a catch knowing fully well that it wasnt clean.
Re: Re: Cheating
by siddhartha xx on Jul 14, 2013 11:25 AM
note the difference between the two instance of claiming false catch knowing fully well its false and standing your ground after nicking. In first isntance you are pretending and trying to influence others to believe in it , while in 2nd instance u have no pretentions. U allow the umpire to make the decision.
Re: Re: Re: Cheating
by Sameer Bhagwat on Jul 14, 2013 01:02 PM
You have obviously not understood what I said, if you know you nicked it faint or otherwise you should walk. If you don't know for sure, then wait for umpires desicion. When you edge to first slip, there is no way you don't know.
Coming to Ramdin, you obviously did not see the match or the replay. Ramdin never appealed or claimed the catch- watch the replay. The umpire gave it out, Ramdin did not claim the catch or even appeal, where did Ramdin do anything diferent than Broad?
Please wtach the replay and then see what happened with Ramdin, the umpire gave it out the moment he nciked it without knowing whether Ramdin caught if propoerly or not. Why according to your logic should Ramdin be banned? Did he appeal- No? Did he claim the catch - NO.
Today's sport is very competitive. Very many players have followed "non-walking" over several years- even in the era of "gentleman's game". Actually we have umpires there to decide whether one is out or not, don't we? Then why blame the player? If at all, blame the umpire! I do know that umpiring is a very tough job, and criticizing is much easier than doing the job itself. Hence I do not ask for 'banning' the umpire. Yet there is no justification in asking for a ban on the player.
There have been multiple cases that the batsman has had an inside edge and is adjudged LBW, not nicked and given out caught behind, Ball hits the pads, caught, appealed and given out-- in all such cases we say Umpire decision is final and the batsman has to go. So the reverse is also applicable. Dar did not give Broad out and he stood his ground-- nothing wrong in that. It should be totally left to an individual if he opts to walk out or stay. Its childish to say "against the spirit of the game".
If the Batsman is given out by the umpire without actually nicking it, he doesn't have a choice to stay at the wicket. So to make things even, its fine to leave it to the umpires.
