Gilchrist, walking, appealing and sportsmanship

[sen entertainment bloke]

With the original poster on the Dravid one. It's up to Gilchrist to justify his appeal in a calmer moment after watching the replay if he wants to maintain his sportmanship integrity 100%. There was at least 5 cm between bat and ball and it would appear he had a clear view. It would definitely seem to be an unsporting appeal. If he can justify it otherwise, I'll listen.

I suspect the record was meaning to much to him.

Talking about his appeal against Dravid, Gilchrist said: "There are times when you don't know. So, you ask the question. Every player has right to ask the umpire. I will say I don't appeal if I don't think they are out. If I am not sure, I will ask the umpire and I'll accept his decision."

Found this in the thread. He appealed with absolutely certainty. Doesn't quite cut it.

 

[statsman74]

It is within the realms of possibilities that he did believe it was out, but he was mistaken.

Just this morning I was absolutely sure that I put my keys on the kitchen bench, and when I asked my wife if she moved them, she said no. I told her I was absolutely sure. 5 minutes later I found them in the bedroom where I got changed.

Was I certain that I put the keys on the bench? Yes.
Was I lying to my wife? No.
Was I mistaken? Absolutely.

Dont tell me Gilchrist was appealing knowing it wasnt out until you can prove it.

 

[wotdoiput]

Its funny how we can watch replay after replay, look at snicko and hot spot and have a go at someone who has a split second to decide whether to appeal or not.

 

[netmatrix]

Its funny how we can watch replay after replay, look at snicko and hot spot and have a go at someone who has a split second to decide whether to appeal or not.

Don't need any replays to see that the Dravid one wasn't even close to being out.

 

[wotdoiput]

You dont think so?I thought it was close thought it might have flicked his glove, before I saw the replay that zoomed in and clearly showed the ball was no where anything but the pad.

 

[melbournemartin]

The fact that this has all fired up recently has become a bit of a joke and I can't blame India for being annoyed with it. I'd be very surprised if more hurtful comments hadn't come from the mouths of Australians on the field in the past. The problem is that these players are expected to be some sort of international diplomat keeping smooth relationships between countries when really they are just average guys who know how to hit a ball well.

 

[Brad Goodman]

He made 2 appeals for 2 balls which he thought may have been out. The issue is?

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

He made 2 appeals for 2 balls which he thought may have been out. The issue is?

In light of the fact that he is considered to be one who honours fair play, the issue is the zealous manner of the appeal when he only "thought" they may have been out.

He has to wear that cricket followers will alter their opinion of him now that the evidence shows he is a bluff the ump player like the rest of them. No big deal for anybody concerned but still worthy of a thread on the cricket forum of big footy, wouldn't you say.

 

[Crazy Horse]

In light of the fact that he is considered to be one who honours fair play, the issue is the zealous manner of the appeal when he only "thought" they may have been out.

How do you know he only "thought" he may have been out? He may have been "sure" that it hit the batsmen's glove.

Umpires and players can make mistakes. It doesn't make them cheats.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

How do you know he only "thought" he may have been out? He may have been "sure" that it hit the batsmen's glove.



Umpires and players can make mistakes. It doesn't make them cheats.

Was quoting Abba lonie but this is Gilchrist's take on the matter

There are times when you don't know. So, you ask the question. Every player has right to ask the umpire.

He did more than ask the question. He acted as if it was dead set out. The original poster made the point that this does not tie in with being a known walker.

Reckon the record means more to him than living the sportsmanship associated with being a walker.

That's my take on it.

(Look when I think of Gilly I think of his quickfire test 200 at the Wanderers in 2002. I don't disown him as a superb wicket keeper batsman. Just having my opinion of his sporting ethics adjusted slightly.)

 

[arzach]

He did more than ask the question. He acted as if it was dead set out. The original poster made the point that this does not tie in with being a known walker.

Reckon the record means more to him than living the sportsmanship associated with being a walker.

That's my take on it.

(Look when I think of Gilly I think of his quickfire test 200 at the Wanderers in 2002. I don't disown him as a superb wicket keeper batsman. Just having my opinion of his sporting ethics adjusted slightly.)

Did you see my post in the Michael Epis thread?
I know the youtube stuff has been done to death, two wrongs don't make a right etc.

However, I think the video illustrates the point nicely. When Dhoni appealed, would you say he appealed like it was "dead set out"? The Gilchrist one I can easily give him be benefit of the doubt, based on my experience. The Dhoni one, I cannot possibly conceive that he wouldn't have known it had bounced. You take a lot of half volleys as a wicketkeeper (because the fieldsman can't throw the damn ball over the stumps) and the feeling is very different to taking it on the full. In fact, I think describing the Dhoni catch as a "half volley" is generous Yet he went up like a man possessed...

At best, Gilchrist appealed voraciously (the umpire gives it out because he thinks it's out, not because he's impressed with your appealing skills) either thinking it was out, or thinking it might be out.

At worst, Gilchrist realised it wasn't out, but appealed thinking the umpire might give it out. This is pretty much in line with every other player playing world cricket.

Given Gilchrist's character (from what we can perceive based on his on field history), I'm inclined to go with option one.

Of all the “perceived” incidents, I find the Dravid one most annoying. I wonder how many games of cricket Mr Epis has kept wicket in? Now, I may not be a test standard wicketkeeper, but I have kept up to the stumps to my fair share of spinners.

Here’s a little experiment. Take an object say a pen and hold it in front of your face. Stare at the top of the pen, I mean really stare at it – 100% concentration. Notice how everything else gets blurry. This is how hard you need to watch the ball when keeping. Now hold a big object, say a pillow up next to the pen, move the pen quickly past the pillow towards your eyes, occasionally flicking the edge of the pillow. Can you tell me exactly where the pen is touching the pillow?

Now, imagine that the pen is a cricket ball and it’s travelling towards you at between 80-100 Km/h. Imagine the pillow is a mix of bat/pad/gloves. Do you see where this is going?

The first mistake all new keepers make is they watch the bat. But after getting whacked in the guts with the ball a few times, you work out pretty quickly that unless you’re concentrating 100% on the ball, you’re not going to get very far.

I’ve had multiple occasions where I appealed after taking a catch that I knew deflected of something (the deflections are obvious – you’re watching the ball like a hawk remember) but had NFI what it actually hit. You see, that’s why there’s an umpire to adjudicate (he just has to watch for the edge/glove contact, not catch the damn ball).

Like a lot of people, when I saw it live, I thought it looked out (taking the glove). Wasn’t till the third replay that I was pretty sure it hadn’t hit glove on the way through. Maybe next time, Dravid will try using his bat (pet hate tucking the bat behind the pad).


I can tell you one thing, though. I ALWAYS knew when the ball had bounced half a foot in front of my gloves.
[youtube]7TmryWZ5VG8[/youtube]