Firstly, clarification: 1. Gilchrist walked after Shepherd said "not out" in the WC semi-final against Sri Lanka. 2. Gilchrist has walked each and every time he has been out since that time (never disproved) 3. Gilchrist has said that if he KNOWS he's out, he will walk every time. 4. That said, a batsman doesn't necessarily know every time he's out (ie when a batsman hits their pad at the same time as the ball, or an attempted hook shot which may or may not flick the glove ever so slightly). 5. When wicketkeeping - Gilchrist has said that if he doesn't see an edge or hear a noise, then he doesn't really appeal. 6. Gilchrist has said that if HE IS NOT SURE, then he asks the question and leaves it to the umpire. 7. Picture a player on day 5 of an emotionally draining, tense, frustrating test match, chasing an improbable victory. Dravid tucks the bat in and in the blink of Gilchrist's eye, there is some sort of noise (which you could hear as the ball flicks the pad) and he goes up. Why - because he wasn't sure!! 8. Again, incompetence gets the decision wrong, and I'm sure Gilly looked at the replay afterwards in slow motion and wasn't over the moon. But again, the same point is made - he wasn't sure so he asked the question and relied on the umpires (shock horror gasp) to do their job.
Give the man a break and don't use him as a patsy in your arguments of convenience!
RE:Gilchrist
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 06:12 AM Permalink
Fantastic Mr. Mammen:
And in your opinion, is Harbhajan strutting about like the wronged "Roy" claiming that he said all those words that he is supposed to have said? And that's why you are condemning Harbhajan? Your bottomline is clear: When MY man says something then (even if he is proved eventually wrong) he is right because he thought he was right at the time he thought he was right. Never mind whether later its something else. But when YOUR man says something then he has to be wrong because he is not MY man... WHITE is always right and the non-white should believe him. Non-white is always wrong, even when he stands up to something he feels is wrong. Excellent logic Mr. Mammen.
RE:Gilchrist
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 07:08 AM Permalink
Perhaps if you correctly interpreted my logic we wouldn't have a misunderstanding!
1) I think I may have said it 20 times here, but as a lawyer, I agree that Harbhajan couldn't be found guilty based on the currently available evidence 2) I admire the way Symonds handled the first occurrence with Harbhajan - telling him privately it was deeply offensive, asking him not to repeat it. The Hogg situation should be handled the same way. Harbhajan perhaps wasn't to know, similarly Hogg wasn't to know. If Hogg says it again in Perth, throw the book at him. 3) I'm Indian
RE:Gilchrist
by Michael Mammen on Jan 09, 2008 07:28 AM Permalink
Not sure how I was conceivably reported for racism and I'm struggling to understand the previous post but: 1) I'm Indian 2) Harbhajan has been warned about the significance of saying monkey to Symonds, therefore IF it can be proved, then he deserves a severe punishment 3) If Hogg didn't know the significance of saying the b word to Kumble/Dhoni, then he should be warned in the same way Symonds warned Harbhajan the first time round, then banned if he repeats it. 4) As per 1), I'm not white.
