Symonds honesty humiliates umpires

By Iain Payten
January 03, 2008

BATTING saviour Andrew Symonds admitted what 22 players, several hundred million viewers and a stadium full of people could tell at the SCG - but two umpires couldn't.

"I was out when I was 30," Symonds owned up.

The heroic knock of 137 not out from Symonds rescued Australia from serious trouble in the second Test in Sydney against a resurgent India, but not without a controversial helping hand from the men in the middle.

On a day where dwindling umpiring standards again came to focus, Symonds was given at least one life early in his innings when he edged a catch to MS Dhoni off the bowling of Ishant Sharma still 70 runs shy of his second Test ton.

But with the Aussies wobbling at 6-183, the Indians were gobsmacked when umpire Steve Bucknor remained unmoved and then watched as Symonds escaped another stumping chance soon after and linked up with Brad Hogg (79) to help the home side blast its way out of strife.

"I was very lucky. I was out when I was 30 and given not out," Symonds said. "That's cricket though. I could sit here and tell you about some bad decisions as well. That's the game. It's one of those things."

But on a day where the howlers weren't confined to Symonds' dig - Ricky Ponting was given not out by Mark Benson on 17 when out caught behind, and then sent packing when clearly not out lbw on 57 - umpiring standards and the use of technology became a hot topic.

Former Australia greats Steve Waugh and Ian Healy suggested changes might be necessary to shake up an under-performing group of world umpires, but Symonds said he'd be reluctant to tinker with the game in the form of constant TV replays and referrals,

"I don't think the game needs to go to the point of every decision gets referred," the Queenslander said.

"People make mistakes, players makes mistakes every day. Umpires make mistakes, too, it's how you handle them and how you keep going when that mistake has been made."

Waugh said that after four obvious errors in one day the neutral umpire system should be scrapped to allow the home-grown world's best official Simon Taufel to stand in Australian Tests.

Healy said the captain's challenge concept might be worth looking at again as a way to harness available technologies and give players a chance to dispute an umpire's call.

"So an umpire wouldn't have that feeling in his heart that he'd wrecked a Test," Healy said on Channel 9.

Ultimately, Symonds' admission will be small consolation to the Indians, who started the day with aggressive inroads into Australia's batting line-up but finished it firmly on the back foot.

Umpires using in-depth technology may be some time off, if at all.

A Channel 9 spokesman said the use of their array of technology - the Snickometer, Hawkeye and the Hot Spot - would currently see the game halted for at least a minute to be formatted and presented to an umpire. A technical glitch could see the match held up for several minutes.

Like Ponting, players have mostly expressed resistance to the concept of time-wasting technology in the game.

Fox Sports

The walk debate rears its head again

By Nick Walshaw
January 03, 2008

MICHAEL Slater always had a simple philosophy on walking.

"Yeah, if the ball went to second slip, I'd go," the retired opener smiles. "Otherwise, you stand your ground."

Another Test summer finally exploded in Sydney, bringing with it all those things we cricket fans take as given - yellow sombreros and overpriced beers, deflated beach balls and plastic schooner snakes.

And then there's that eternal question rivalling anything thrown up on Channel 9's Johnnie Walker Trivia quiz - The Great Walk debate.

Yep, arguing the merits of a batsman's obligation to walk is a summer institution in this country. Like rubber thongs, foam Eskies and sunburnt Pommie backpackers flailing in rips.

It's a cricketing conundrum played out a thousand times every weekend. On beaches, bush pitches and suburban backyards. The SCG, MCG and Jubilee Oval, Mudgee.

On Wednesday it was Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds reviving the argument - both standing like Buckingham Palace guards when caught behind.

Sure, the decisions seemed straightforward enough. With Snicko, Hot Spot, even the old bloke pouring schooners in the Members Stand giving them out.

But the batsmen stood unmoved. So, too, the umpires. And so the questioning began.

Symonds, of course, was the big winner. Hammering India to all parts of the ground, and twice out of it, to score an unbeaten 137.

Punter, meanwhile, lasted just eight more overs before being incorrectly adjudged lbw. Striking the ball with so much wood, well, fellow Tasmanian Dave Foster would've needed at least one stance change to cut through it.

And according to Slats, that's where the Great Walk Debate should've ended. Permanently.

"Oh, that Ponting decision showed why you don't walk, definitely," Slater said.

"Over a batsman's career the lucky breaks and the rough decisions usually finish about square. So you cop the bad ones and take the breaks when they come your way.

"And especially for batsmen. Because the other big thing working against them now is the third umpire.

"Back when I was playing, if there was a 50/50 run out decision it almost always went in favour of the batsman.

"But that's not the case any more. So if you're being given out by the third umpire, copping the bad decisions and still offering to walk - well, it's never going to finish up anywhere near equal, is it?"

For the record, Adam Gilchrist is the only Australia cricketer who walks. Perhaps the only Australian, too. The trait is usually cut Down Under shortly after the umbilical cord.

"Although, there was one time when I did go," Slater said. "Boxing Day Test 1998. It was against Englishman Dean Headley ... I walked on an lbw."

An lbw decision?

"Yeah, the ball jagged back, there was this huge shout and it felt bad. Really bad. Like I was plumb in front.

"So I turned and walked. But I'd only got as far as gully when I started thinking, 'Maybe that has hit me outside off.'

"And, sure enough, watching the replays later it had. Maybe umpire Steve Bucknor would've given me out anyway, who knows? But I certainly felt stupid when I got back to the sheds."

Judging by events on Wednesday, Slater would have been well served to stand his ground.

Because it was Bucknor again behind the stumps when the appeal went up - this time giving Symonds not out as the burly Queenslander edged Ishant Sharma behind.

Commenting a few overs later, former Australian captain Ian Chappell said he could only recall one worse decision in his lengthy career as a player, commentator and scribe.

"And that was being given not out myself after nicking Michael Holding," he said. "That was probably a touch worse than that decision, but not much."

Certainly not enough for Chappelli to walk.

Fox Sports

Should a batsman walk if they know that they are out?

VOTE and have your say!

I think a batsmen should walk if he knows that he is out.
Im saying this as I'm a bowler and also cricket is a gentleman game and these things bound to ruin the repetition of cricket.