Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alison Personally I'm not all that bothered whether players walk or not, there's nothing in the Laws of Cricket to say that they ought to, it is merely left as an option. |
I'm with you one one thing: no individual player should be pilloried for being a non-walker (so long as they DO take the rough with the smooth and disappear with equal grace when they get good and bad decisions). I don't LIKE to see this... but it's (rightly or wrongly) an accepted tradition... and if Hussey wants to tread that path then sobeit.
With that said... I've a lot more time for those who DO walk... and I do think the umpires should take into account the track record of the batsman: if Hussey stands his ground he should NOT be given the benefit of the doubt... and if the umpire even suspects he MIGHT be out he should be GIVEN out. IF Gilchrist stands his ground... then even if the first instinct of the umpire is that the decision should be out... the umpire should defer to the batsman and keep quiet.
Sure... the umpire should then review the evidence that night to check that Gilchirst was right to stand his ground... and if there's evidence that Gilchrist should no-longer be trusted then that should be made known to all umpires - but until there's evidence that Gilchrist has tried to deceive... he deserves credit for being honest and to be trusted!
On the broader point... I also think the sport as a whole should take a strong position on this matter:
1. At televised games... teams should be allowed to challenge a decision and get it referred to the third umpire.... thus ensuring there's no "rough" that the batsman has to take with the "smooth" when it comes to whether the did / did not hit the ball.
2. Once this is in place... the ICC code of conduct should be ammended to require walking... as the "rough with the smooth" defense will have disappeared in this respect: anyone found to have no walked should be given a serious (say 6 Test) sentence perhaps, suspended in the first instance, but to be served concurrently with a second penalty in the event of a repeat offense within (say) 2 years.
All eminently practical... and whilst it would have no immediate impact at the lower (non-televised) level of the game... the change in the culture of the sport would be immedate.