Walking

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Good question that. Probably not, but not being a walker certainly doesn't.

 

[cyclopath]

So does being a walker give you the right to complain about umpiring decisions?

No, but if you generally walk when you hit it, I guess it is reasonable to stand your ground / review it or whatever if you are sure you didn't. Ultimately, you gotta go if the fickle finger says so.
Ultimately, it will never be perfect, but walking is about saying to yourself "I did hit it, I'm out, so I oughta go". I understand the arguments about good calls balancing bad calls, but that's just a personal thing that I would feel a bit of a fraud if I nicked a good 'un, then went on to score another 40 or 50.

 

[barbarian]

You have more right to complain, certainly. Complaining is always a bad look, but if you are a walker you have a bit more credibility I reckon.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Interesting thread - good to see people's views on this. I say each to their own, because although it's the moral ground to walk, it's also the right of the umpire to give you out when not, so these things will even out.

How do people feel about claiming catches which weren't?

Because I guess that is kind of simliar of nicking it & not walking. However, I view claiming non catches much more along the lines of "not being cricket"

 

[mark_s]

Upto the individual but I have no issues with someone not walking. I once did the same myself once in a finals cricket match as I was in disbelief that I was out already.

 

[barbarian]

I reckon claiming a catch that you know bounced is far worse than not walking. When you nick a ball to the keeper, the Umpire has all information at his disposal to make an informed decision. It's his call, and if he gets it wrong then good luck to you. But on a close catch, the Umpire is essentially going off your word as it is way too hard to see with the human eye. If you then lie to the Umpire, then you are nothing more than a cheat.

But I do think those close catches are really hard to judge, as fieldsmen often don't know themselves whether the ball bounced, and technology proves inconclusive more often than not. I do think Ponting's catch in Brisbane was legitimate though, and I admire his crusade to take the fieldsman's word in such circumstances.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Claiming catches that you know aren't is more in the realm of straight out cheating. It's one thing to say to the ump, "I'm not sure", it's another to have the ball clearly bounce in front of you or you dropping it and still claiming the catch.

 

[Newb]

i first saw this thread and instantly rolled my eyes while thinking "we already have cycling and running threads, ffs. now this is just getting excessive!"

i suppose i'm for walking. carry on.

 

[RugbyFuture]

a few months ago i made a sleeping and eating thread...

 

[Bullrush]

Claiming catches that you know aren't is more in the realm of straight out cheating. It's one thing to say to the ump, "I'm not sure", it's another to have the ball clearly bounce in front of you or you dropping it and still claiming the catch.

I'm not sure how people make a difference between the two.

If you know you hit it - you're out. If you know you didn't catch it - not out. It's not that complex is it??