Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alison If walking were required what would you expect a batsman to do if he weren't certain whether he hit the ball or not? |
I'm more concerned that those who do walk, and who have a record of being 100% straight even when the pressure is on to stand, are given the benefit of the doubt up until such time as they show themselves unworthy of that trust.
The "compulsary" bit is tough... and would depend on former Test batsmen satisfying the ICC as to when batsmen do / do not know whether they have nicked it. My impression is that the batsman does almost always know... and if that's the case then I see no problem with compulsion... but if not... I think the idea sucks.
The compromise remains appeals against decisions as now used in tennis: either side might appeal... but they would get no more than two false appeals per day.