Why do people mind cheating so much? I cheat all the time. When I don't know the answer to a question and some on else does.. I ask him if that is possible. I personally don't see anything wrong.
Ashes I - 2013 - In England
- Thread starter ghaliboy
- Start date
One is trying to trick the umpire, one is letting him get it wrong. I'm not saying it's not still cheating, but one is worse than the other in my eyes.
It's not cheating.
If some want to walk, fair play to them but those who don't are not cheaters. It's up to the umpire to give them out, that why they stand there for the whol day
I'd like to think I'd walk but I doubt I would after Agar's decision yesterday.
So why do we have DRS then? It's up to the umpires to give them out, isn't it?
DRS is part of the umpiring system.
Not really the same as diving, more akin to the ball going over the line and the ref not giving it so you play on. I don't recall Neuer getting any accusations of being a cheat despite the fact he saw Lampard's shot go over the line for example.
Regardless, if Australia had used the review system properly instead of going for unlikely LBW decisions then they'd have got the wicket anyway. I know most teams use the review system similarly, but I don't think you can really complain if you waste your reviews on unlikely chances rather than using it for obviously bad decisions, as its meant to be used.
I missed this yesterday, what happened? I saw Agar ran up a massive score on his Test debut right when the Aussies needed him to.
And is reliant on the players challenging the umpires on field decision.
It's only because its and England player people are defending him.
For all the bollocks people are coming out with about an Australian not walking as well (not on here admittedly) Gilchrest was absolutely renowned for it.
I am not English actually so couldn't care less.
I hadn't see the incident when I commented actually and now that I have seen it you're probably right. I don't think I could have stayed out there if I had nicked it like that.
But for smaller and thin edges, my point stands.
Using that logic, is it ok for footballers to dive and cheat?
Is every player who commits a foul that is not picked up by the referee a cheat?
Clarke has to learn to use the DRS system sparingly. I know he is an attacking captain by nature but bit ridiculous to have used up 2 reviews by now.
It didn't seem 'right' for him to stand there. But he's perfectly within his rights.
No, because simulation is not within the rules football. Within cricket the batsman is notout until the umpire says so. He is within his rights to stand there till he is given out.
Can an umpire not refer to DRS if he isn't certain himself?
It seems like these challenges have only been added for entertainment purposes rather than for accuracy. Surely all decisions should be checked out by the 3rd umpire?
The same thing happens in tennis where a ball is quite obviously out and the player can't challenge if they've used them all up, it's nonsense.
It seems like these challenges have only been added for entertainment purposes rather than for accuracy. Surely all decisions should be checked out by the 3rd umpire?
The same thing happens in tennis where a ball is quite obviously out and the player can't challenge if they've used them all up, it's nonsense.
Why did you decide to answer my question with a question yourself?
To answer your question, no.
To commit a foul can be accidental, to dive to gain advantage is cheating, to stand when you clearly know you are out is also cheating.
To say it is acceptable to dive or to stand when not given out tells you more about how life in general has changed.
No one gives a shit these days, its all about attitude, bad attitude that is.
The idea though is to correct obviously wrong decisions, if you do that then you should keep your reviews. If you decide to gamble on chance LBW's then you can't really argue if you use them up needlessly and a decision goes against you.
He was out ,he knew he was out, he should have walked.
Cheating cnut, simple as that.
One of the main reasons there are challenges is because if there weren't then the fielding team would appeal everything. We can barely get all the overs we are supposed to right now and you'd get less if they could appeal everything to DRS.
Nah it works fine if you use it properly. Clarke wasted his reviews on marginal decisions, if he'd saved it for the howler like Cook does and how it was intended then 2 is plenty.
England just grinding Australia down.
C'mon England 
I'm a big Bell critic, but what a great grinding knock today
Hopefully England try to go a bit quicker tomorrow, done the hard job, no need to be quite as cautious tomorrow. Hope Bell gets his century as well, arguably his best performance in an England shirt considering the situation when he came in.
After watching cricket for nearly 20 years, Gilchrist was the exception when it came to Australians and walking, not the rule.
Broad's in the wrong here, quite clearly. But it is funny to see Aussies get in a tizz over this.
Bell always seems to pull out a top innings when he (and the team) needs it most, well done to him.
As a batsman you get a fair few stinkers throughout your career, so why on earth would you feel compelled to walk if the umpire does not give it? Credit to those who do but those who don't are not cheats
England should get to 300 ahead then go mental.
Clarke did exactly the same in Adelaide, even worse to a degree he walked away to the side of the crease giving no eye contact to the umpire.
He was given out on DRS but because England had a review left.
He was given out on DRS but because England had a review left.
No, the umpire's decision is what matters. Morally, you will get given 'out' by mistakes when you're not and given 'not out' when you are. No need to penalise yourself by giving yourself out as well.
Really nothing to see here, I can see arguments for both sides, just get on with it. England copped a bad call yesterday, Australia copped a bad call today. Talk of a suspension is ridiculous.
Disagree, if a player dives to gain an advantage he is a cheat.
There will be times when players are clearly fouled but the ref doesn't give it.
Same applies here as far as I am concerned, Broad knew he hit it he knew he was caught, he should have walked.
Does not make it right to cheat just because decisions have gone against you in the past.
Why are you hell bent on comparing two completely different sports?
A batsman is not out until the umpire says he is out. So he has every right to just stand there. You can argue if its in the spirit of the game and personally it didn't seem 'right', however he is definitely did not cheat.
Ball tampering for example is something that would be considered cheating.
Another poster asked whether a player commiting a foul and the ref not seeing it was a cheat,which he clearly is not.
As far as cricket is concerned I believe that if a player knows he is out he should walk, sportsmanship and all that.
fecking hell the number of pens I didn't get when I was fouled is minute compared to the one or two I got when I wasn't. You didn't see me arguing with the ref, I thought it was minor compensation for the major injustice.
It's because no one cares about you, Pete. Stuart broad is an international cricketer playing in a match watched by millions.
I'm more outraged because broads dismissal would've set up the match.
Also, more than not walking, it's the way he dismissively shook his head.
Also, more than not walking, it's the way he dismissively shook his head.
But it's at least good it happened to Michael Clarke who'd stand his ground after nicking it to third slip.