Gilchrist, walking, appealing and sportsmanship

[gerta]

But there is a noise. Any keeper will appeal if the ball lands in his glove and there is a noise.

Whether he is a walker or not that doesn't make him bad sport.

As Healy said during the cricket show, a keeper will appeal for something he thinks is out, or something he thinks the umpire will give out..

 

[netmatrix]

But there is a noise. Any keeper will appeal if the ball lands in his glove and there is a noise.

Plenty of keepers don't appeal when the ball comes off pad, thighpad, shoulder. And often, when they do it is more a question, than an appeal of conviction. If you have a look at the video above, and the way Gilchrist reacted and threw the ball up in the air, he acted as if there was no doubt in his mind that it was out. And from the replay you can see that it clearly wasn't out.

Whether he is a walker or not that doesn't make him bad sport.

Well depends if you see walking and appealing as all part of sportsmanship.
If you do, then Gilchrist is worse than a non-walker.
If you don't, then it means that he is no better than Yuvraj, Clarke or any of the others in terms of sportsmanship and he shouldn't be talked of in that way.

Are you Indian by any chance or support the Indian cricket team?

Neither Indian, nor a supporter of their cricket team. As I said, this isn't just about the recent match, it's just that the recent match presented two clear examples where my points could be illustrated.

You seem to have a very UNAUSTRALIAN view on our cricket team.

Asking legitimate questions with evidence is UnAustralian?

It's the aussie culture. We fight hard for our wins. It's just in our blood.

Definately the 2nd one.


I'm sure you will do a better job, ********!

Spot on. Jealous that we beat em.

Please don't derail this thread. If you want to talk about the match itself, or have a go at the Indians, there are plenty of other threads for that.

 

[Crazy lad]

I can pick a sook from a mile away, hes the one complaining about the umpire when his team loses.

 

[netmatrix]

I can pick a sook from a mile away, hes the one complaining about the umpire when his team loses.

I have not complained about a single umpiring decision in this entire thread. If you want to have a go at people who do, please the countless other threads in the forum, where it would be relevant.

 

[giantroo]

Calm down...all I was saying is that the result would've been more satisfying were it not for all the fallout regarding the obviously substandard umpiring, I wasn't suggesting tha the outcome was wrong because of the umpiring.

Or is it that because we won, any criticism of the match is obviously un-Australian?

Well you take the good with the bad.

The way the criticism is coming through that is the problem. What did Australia do wrong when Kumble said that we didnt play in the spirit of the game? Walking off? Didn't Ponting Walk off when the replay clearly showed that he wasn't out?

Ok, I would allow Kumble to criticise the umps but to come out and stick words from his arse and ruin the reputation of a team is in my book "UNAUSTRALIAN".

 

[JKCeagle]

Well you take the good with the bad.

The way the criticism is coming through that is the problem. What did Australia do wrong when Kumble said that we didnt play in the spirit of the game? Walking off? Didn't Ponting Walk off when the replay clearly showed that he wasn't out?

Ok, I would allow Kumble to criticise the umps but to come out and stick words from his arse and ruin the reputation of a team is in my book "UNAUSTRALIAN".

In this thread, I haven't written a single word in defence of India or Kumble...I have commented ONLY on the umpiring, which I felt degraded the game in relation to both teams. Is that not a fair point of view?

 

[Cousin Jed]

Plenty of keepers don't appeal when the ball comes off pad, thighpad, shoulder. And often, when they do it is more a question, than an appeal of conviction. If you have a look at the video above, and the way Gilchrist reacted and threw the ball up in the air, he acted as if there was no doubt in his mind that it was out. And from the replay you can see that it clearly wasn't out.

You answered your own question.

And really judging how sporting a person is by the conviction of their appeals is a bit silly. One person throwing the ball up, is another person's forward roll.

Well depends if you see walking and appealing as all part of sportsmanship.
If you do, then Gilchrist is worse than a non-walker.
If you don't, then it means that he is no better than Yuvraj, Clarke or any of the others in terms of sportsmanship and he shouldn't be talked of in that way.

If appealing for something that turns out is not out is unsportsman like, then every cricketer on the planet is a disgrace.

 

[giantroo]

In this thread, I haven't written a single word in defence of India or Kumble...I have commented ONLY on the umpiring, which I felt degraded the game in relation to both teams. Is that not a fair point of view?

Don't take it the wrong way.I was only using an example to prove my point and to reply to your sarcism.

 

[thejester]

Have a look at this replay:

Don't have to think too long and hard about that one.

The second incident I see on that video is Ponting edging onto his pads, the Indians going up, and Ponting being given out. Are we to assume the entire Indian team are poor sports as well? Or can we perhaps assume that in a split second (as opposed to the endless replays we get) cricketers - just like umpires - can be wrong?

Gilchrist walking has shown he's prepared to put his own personal integrity ahead of the team's interest. Why is this suddenely being questioned on the basis of one incident which happened in the blink of an eye, and in which the Australian team simultaneously went up? Shouldn't, in the absence of an admission, Gilchrist be given the benefit of the doubt?

 

[netmatrix]

As a keeper i can sympathise with Gilchrist. Firstly, it's all too easy to say that Gilchrist would've seen the puff of dirt from the Dhoni incident. Viewers have the pleasure of seeing the ball in slow-mo thousands of times and from various angles. From Gilly's angle, keeping in mind he only saw it once and at full speed, he may have been impaired by any or all of the following things: Dhoni's bat, Dhoni's right leg, the grill on his own helmet. Don't come and tell me he would've seen the puff easily, that's just garbage.

If the Dhoni incident was in isolation, I would have been more than happy to give the benefit of the doubt to Gilchrist. But when it came on the back of Gilchrist appealing with such conviction for something something as blatant as the Dravid dismissal, it makes it pretty hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

As for the Dravid dismissal, again keeping in mind he only saw it once and at full speed, Dravid's bat (at the time the ball passed it and his pad) was directly behind his pad, before he pulled it further behind his leg. From Gilly's angle, there's a very good chance that it would've appeared as if the ball struck the bat as opposed to the pad.

At the very least, there would have been doubt - nothing suggested it came off the bat (except the noise as Cousin Jed pointed out, but even then pad's don't make the same woody noise as bats). The way that he appealed for that with conviction lead me to the conclusion.

Personally, i've been in those pressure-cooker situations before (albeit not with a quarter of the repercussions as yesterday) and everyone tends to appeal for anything and everything, regardless of their own nature. That's just the way cricket is at those times and frankly, on such a big stage as yesterday, if you're not playing with that killer instinct then you shouldn't be out there. Any team would've acted the same if they were in Australia's shoes, there's no doubt to that.

So what you're saying is that it's ok to show sportsmanship when it's not a pressure cooker situation, but when it is a pressure cooker situation, it's ok for sportsmanship to go out the window?
In that case how is that any different to people who walk when it suits them?

PS thanks for being one of the only few posters to actually contribute meaningful discussion to this thread

 

[Cooldude]

Gilchrist has said in public in the past that he would appeal if he thinks the batsman's out, the problem is he seems to think the batsman's out most of the time

 

[DIG]

The second incident I see on that video is Ponting edging onto his pads, the Indians going up, and Ponting being given out. Are we to assume the entire Indian team are poor sports as well? Or can we perhaps assume that in a split second (as opposed to the endless replays we get) cricketers - just like umpires - can be wrong?

Gilchrist walking has shown he's prepared to put his own personal integrity ahead of the team's interest. Why is this suddenely being questioned on the basis of one incident which happened in the blink of an eye, and in which the Australian team simultaneously went up? Shouldn't, in the absence of an admission, Gilchrist be given the benefit of the doubt?

Very, very well said.

There's no rule against appealling. And Ponting's inside edge which the Indians went up so confidently for was more obvious in real time than Dravid's dismissal.

Nothing wrong with either side for appealing. The onus is on the umpires to do their job. As players from both sides lost confidence with the umpires, more appeals and non-walking after edges behind occurred.

 

[netmatrix]

You answered your own question.

And really judging how sporting a person is by the conviction of their appeals is a bit silly.

as silly as praising how sporting someone is for "walking" then?

One person throwing the ball up, is another person's forward roll.

Key difference? Gilly threw the ball up before the umpire had raised his finger. Harbhajan's celebration was after the umpire had raised his finger. Anyway, no one talks about Harbhajan as a great pioneer of sportsmanship.

If appealing for something that turns out is not out is unsportsman like, then every cricketer on the planet is a disgrace.

Sorry, I don't think I called anyone a disgrace. But if you want to come to those conclusions, then that's your call.

The second incident I see on that video is Ponting edging onto his pads, the Indians going up, and Ponting being given out. Are we to assume the entire Indian team are poor sports as well?

If you want to, go for it. I've never seen Harbhajan lauded for his sportsmanship like Gilchrist has been.

Gilchrist walking has shown he's prepared to put his own personal integrity ahead of the team's interest.

You mean like he did yesterday when his team was pressing for a wicket?

Why is this suddenely being questioned on the basis of one incident which happened in the blink of an eye and in which the Australian team simultaneously went up?

As I said, I've noticed this a few times over the years, but the evidence was not really clear cut, so I was happy to give the benefit of the doubt. But yesterday's actions make it pretty hard to keep doing that.

Shouldn't, in the absence of an admission, Gilchrist be given the benefit of the doubt?

Like I said, if the Dhoni incident happened in isolation, then sure give him the benefit of the doubt. But hard to do that when it's coming off the back of the blatant Dravid one.

 

[scottydeewah]

As a keeper i can sympathise with Gilchrist. Firstly, it's all too easy to say that Gilchrist would've seen the puff of dirt from the Dhoni incident. Viewers have the pleasure of seeing the ball in slow-mo thousands of times and from various angles. From Gilly's angle, keeping in mind he only saw it once and at full speed, he may have been impaired by any or all of the following things: Dhoni's bat, Dhoni's right leg, the grill on his own helmet. Don't come and tell me he would've seen the puff easily, that's just garbage.

As for the Dravid dismissal, again keeping in mind he only saw it once and at full speed, Dravid's bat (at the time the ball passed it and his pad) was directly behind his pad, before he pulled it further behind his leg. From Gilly's angle, there's a very good chance that it would've appeared as if the ball struck the bat as opposed to the pad.

Personally, i've been in those pressure-cooker situations before (albeit not with a quarter of the repercussions as yesterday) and everyone tends to appeal for anything and everything, regardless of their own nature. That's just the way cricket is at those times and frankly, on such a big stage as yesterday, if you're not playing with that killer instinct then you shouldn't be out there. Any team would've acted the same if they were in Australia's shoes, there's no doubt to that.

Yes.

You dont just appeal in cricket because you think it is out. You appeal to put the BATSMAN under pressure. Especially against spin it is used a a plot to stop a batsman from padding up. Often we would appeal a lot if a batsman was padding up, even when we knew if could never be given LBW. Two reasons, one when they do pad up to a straighter ball the it is fresh in the umpires mind that is has been happening a lot and the player has no intention of using his bat. Two to put the thought into the batsmans mind, maybe I should be padding up.

I dont know one other sport where people walk or reverse a decision when they know it is wrong.

I saw Arsenal score a goal the other week where the scorer knew so well he was offside, he looked straight over at the linesman. Did he take the goal though, damn right he did.

 

[JuveRule]

So what you're saying is that it's ok to show sportsmanship when it's not a pressure cooker situation, but when it is a pressure cooker situation, it's ok for sportsmanship to go out the window?

I can see how you could reach that conclusion. It's never ok for sportsmanship to go out the window, but at such a stage of the game it's inevitable that winning will take precedence over sportsmanship, which is a shame, but it's just representative of the way the game has evolved. I'd love to ask Richie Benaud to compare the feeling at the Adelaide Oval on that afternoon in 1961 when Ken Mackay and Lindsay Kline saved the test for the Aussies against the Windies with yesterday's final session...

 

[netmatrix]

Gilchrist has said in public in the past that he would appeal if he thinks the batsman's out, the problem is he seems to think the batsman's out most of the time

Fair enough then, sounds like he's like most of the other players then. Not a great ambassador for sportsmanship as he has been made out to be in the last few years.

Very, very well said.

There's no rule against appealling. And Ponting's inside edge which the Indians went up so confidently for was more obvious in real time than Dravid's dismissal.

As I said before, none of those players are lauded for being pioneers of walking and great sportsmanship as Gilly is.

Nothing wrong with either side for appealing. The onus is on the umpires to do their job. As players from both sides lost confidence with the umpires, more appeals and non-walking after edges behind occurred.

You make a good point. The players probably did lose confidence in the umpires then. But let me put this to you, if a walker decides that he's lost confidence in the umpires and decides not to walk, doesn't that mean he is a selective walker? in which case, isn't he worse than a non-walker because he only walks when he wants to?

 

[apollo_creed]

Actually he (the thread starter) makes a relevant point which he took time and length to explain.

Want to talk about cleaning up this board? Well how about those who attack others with an alternate opinion who go to time and length expressing their point?

It was articulated well and deserves far better than some of the narrow 'OMG Auseeiss won lol' responses it has received.

A legitimate question and discussion.

Lara was walking before anybody but he nor anybody else never really made a big deal about it.

Alot of the time Gilchrist doesn't go up when the Australians do (for something stupid/not out) so he does have integrity and honesty when it comes to the opposition batting. Hopefully it's not a selective thing/he only does this when things aren't important.
I don't think Gilchrist would claim a catch if he hadn't believed he caught it.

As for the Dravid thing, it happens quickly, I have no doubt that he believed the ball came off the bat. As seen in the past, if he thinks the batsman didn't hit it he'll appeal light heartedly/not at all.

He deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[Kahuna_202]

Gilchrist has shown more sportsmanship throughout his career than most cricketers. Many people forget all the other little instances throughout his career that has made him a good sportsman (other than the walking).

As for the appeals, as a keeper it can become difficult when it comes to fine edges. Even being in such a good position and with the slower bowler's on, the point from which the ball goes past the bat happens very quickly and it is very hard to judge how close the ball actually was to the bat when its in the cases of mm's. Majority of those times your aided with the sound on your decision, which was the case with the Dravid decision. Also note on that video that they did'nt show any other angles as was shown on the live coverage, the bat was actually very close to the ball.

 

[netmatrix]

Yes.

Netmatrix you are a goon and have no idea.

Can we please keep this thread free of personal insults and discuss the point at hand?

Secondly you dont just appeal in cricket because you think it is out. You appeal to put the BATSMAN under pressure. Especially against spin it is used a a plot to stop a batsman from padding up. Often we would appeal a lot if a batsman was padding up, even when we knew if could never be given LBW. Two reasons, one when they do pad up to a straighter ball the it is fresh in the umpires mind that is has been happening a lot and the player has no intention of using his bat. Two to put the thought into the batsmans mind, maybe I should be padding up.

Fair enough, but it doesn't do much for your personal integrity or credibility of sportsmanship does it?
I have no doubt that a lot of players around the world do the same - but they aren't described as people who demonstrate great sportsmanship are they? (like Gilly is)

I dont know one other sport where people walk or reverse a decision when they know it is wrong.

OK

I saw Arsenal score a goal the other week where the scorer knew so well he was offside, he looked straight over at the linesman. Did he take the goal though, damn right he did.

Good on him. Was he talked of as a person who displays great sportsmanship in the past?

 

[apollo_creed]

Selective sportsmanship is worse than anything.

 

[DIG]

Fair enough then, sounds like he's like most of the other players then. Not a great ambassador for sportsmanship as he has been made out to be in the last few years.


As I said before, none of those players are lauded for being pioneers of walking and great sportsmanship as Gilly is.



You make a good point. The players probably did lose confidence in the umpires then. But let me put this to you, if a walker decides that he's lost confidence in the umpires and decides not to walk, doesn't that mean he is a selective walker? in which case, isn't he worse than a non-walker because he only walks when he wants to?

I don't think anyone should walk unless it's blatantly obvious. Once Gilly set the precedent then he opens himself up for criticism every time he gets even the faintest edge if he doesn't walk - where does he draw the line? What if he's not sure after tickling a hook shot through to the keeper, stands his ground and replays show he nicked it?

But i don't think it's reasonable to completely attack his integrity, just cos he went up after Dravid's dismissal - Nip/Tuck's correct in that Gilly often doesn't go up when others do. It's just possible that he heard two noises and thought it was out.

I can see where you're coming from tho - i cringed myself when i saw the slo-mo. But i'm not going to call him a bad sportsman over a split second incident like that.

The far bigger issue is the umpire giving that out - clearly should've given the benefit to the batsman.

 

[Il Naso De Gastev]

Can we please keep this thread free of personal insults and discuss the point at hand?


Fair enough, but it doesn't do much for your personal integrity or credibility of sportsmanship does it?
I have no doubt that a lot of players around the world do the same - but they aren't described as people who demonstrate great sportsmanship are they? (like Gilly is)


OK


Good on him. Was he talked of as a person who displays great sportsmanship in the past?

Honestly. The keeper appeals for something that may or may not be out... how is he to know definitively 100% of the time that the batsman has/hasn't knicked it, its a bump ball etc?? What's he gonna do, only appeal when it's definitely out?? In that case, why appeal for an LBW?? You don't know that it's definitely out... you have a feeling that it's pretty close, but you can't be sure... yet the whole team goes up. There's always going to be an element of doubt... that's why it's called an "appeal".

You're still comparing Gilly 'walking' with Gilly 'appealing', even though you've been pulled up several times on it.... apples and oranges I'm afraid.

 

[netmatrix]

Actually he (the thread starter) makes a relevant point which he took time and length to explain.

Want to talk about cleaning up this board? Well how about those who attack others with an alternate opinion who go to time and length expressing their point?

It was articulated well and deserves far better than some of the narrow 'OMG Auseeiss won lol' responses it has received.

A legitimate question and discussion.

Thanks Nip/Tuck.

Alot of the time Gilchrist doesn't go up when the Australians do (for something stupid/not out) so he does have integrity and honesty when it comes to the opposition batting. Hopefully it's not a selective thing/he only does this when things aren't important.
I don't think Gilchrist would claim a catch if he hadn't believed he caught it.

As for the Dravid thing, it happens quickly, I have no doubt that he believed the ball came off the bat. As seen in the past, if he thinks the batsman didn't hit it he'll appeal light heartedly/not at all.

He deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

Happy to agree to disagree on that one. As I said, this is something that I've slowly noticed after such a big deal was made of his walking in 2003. And I was happy to give him the benefit of the doubt until yesterday. The incidents yesterday were the tipping point.

But i'm not going to call him a bad sportsman over a split second incident like that.

Fair enough. As I said, this isn't a knee-jerk reaction to a couple of incidents. It's something that I've noticed over time and it kinda culminated in those two incidents yesterday.

The far bigger issue is the umpire giving that out - clearly should've given the benefit to the batsman.

You're right, but I think there's enough threads on that

 

[netmatrix]

Gilchrist has shown more sportsmanship throughout his career than most cricketers. Many people forget all the other little instances throughout his career that has made him a good sportsman (other than the walking).

An example for you:
I'm sure a selective walker who walks when his team are dominating can point to lots of times when he's walked (conveniently when his team has been on top) or the times when he's shaken the hands of an opponent after they've made centuries etc (ie other examples of good sportsmanship).

Still doesn't change the fact that he is a selective walker does it?

Honestly. The keeper appeals for something that may or may not be out... how is he to know definitively 100% of the time that the batsman has/hasn't knicked it, its a bump ball etc?? What's he gonna do, only appeal when it's definitely out?? In that case, why appeal for an LBW?? You don't know that it's definitely out... you have a feeling that it's pretty close, but you can't be sure... yet the whole team goes up. There's always going to be an element of doubt... that's why it's called an "appeal".

Well, look at the way he acted. He acted as if there was no doubt about the decision and celebrated as if it was so obvious that it had already been given rather than appealing (and people like Cousin Jed likened it to Harbhajan's roll, which was a celebration). At the very least he would've known there was some doubt, but he acted as if there was no doubt. Surely you've got to question the man's personal integrity.

You're still comparing Gilly 'walking' with Gilly 'appealing', even though you've been pulled up several times on it.... apples and oranges I'm afraid.

I'm not sure if you've read the entire thread (you're not selectively reading are you? ). But here was my response to that:

"Well depends if you see walking and appealing as all part of sportsmanship.
If you do, then Gilchrist is worse than a non-walker.
If you don't, then it means that he is no better than Yuvraj, Clarke or any of the others in terms of sportsmanship and he shouldn't be talked of in that way" [i.e showing great sportsmanship].

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

netmatrix you have raised the question of whether Gilchrist may be a selective walker, or show selective sportsmanship bo only choosing to show fair play when we are on top or it isn't important. Is this a reasonable view given his most famous 'walk' was the semi final of a World Cup and put us 1/34 with Gilly on fire. The stakes were pretty damn high and we were far from on top when he walked that day. Arguably higher than yesterday I would argue.

As for the Dhoni and Dravid appeals......the Dhoni one looked gone in real time. I don't think it was unreaosnable that with a leg in the way he would have appealed and left it tot he umpire to do their job. The Dravid appeal, I will hope (all I can do as I don't claim to know what was going through Gilly's head) he appealed in good faith with at least a fair conviction that he felt it had been hit.