To walk or not to walk

[sanz]

I dont like it and as Ian Chappel said 'Hypocrisy is alive and well'. I was okay with Gilchrist walking but Kaspa was embarrassing the umpire. I wish Yuvraj, Ganguly and Patel haven't fallen to that trick.

[Occasional Fan]

David Shepherd always has red cheeks. I don't for a moment think he was embarrassed. Surprised, maybe: embarrassed, never.

[Occasional Fan]

And even mentioned in the leader from today's edition of The Observer. See this link.

[R W S]

That confirmed non-walker Mike Atherton has a lot to say about walking. Here's an extract from the full article which is available at the Sunday Telegraph here (you may need to register, it's free, in order to read the full piece)

Originally Posted by Mike Atherton

So what's the problem, you might ask? If everyone walked, if everyone appealed only when they knew it was out, if everyone was 100 per cent honest then it would be a better game. Umpires would become mere bean counters, and judges of lbws, and the game would become a self-governing idyll. Just as I typed those words I looked up and saw a couple of pigs flying over the Chidambaram Stadium.

The reality is that sportsmen are not like that, never have been. In life very few things are black and white, leaving only shades of grey: we might regard ourselves as decent law-abiding citizens even though we routinely break the speed limit. So it is in sport, where different games demand a different adherence to the rules or laws. For myself, I was a confirmed non-walker and could easily live with the fact that I was asking an umpire to perform a job he is paid to do. I didn't, and still don't, regard that as cheating.

[R W S]

A nice turn of phrase from Shep!

Originally Posted by Sunday Telegraph

Two of the batsmen, Adam Gilchrist and Jason Gillespie, walked before the umpire could raise his finger, so obvious were the edges. The third, Michael Kasprowicz, watched the umpire, David Shepherd, shake his head, say not out, call the over and start to walk to square leg before Kasprowicz's conscience got the better of him and he, too, turned on his heels and made the long trek back to the pavilion.
Shepherd was absolutely dumbfounded: he planted both hands firmly on his hips, puffed out his ruddy cheeks, stared at the non-striker, Simon Katich, and mouthed: "Bugger me, he's walked."

[Maranello]

'We play hard but fair and accept all umpiring decisions as a mark of respect for our opponents, the umpires, ourselves and the game."

According to the Observer Leader today, that's the code of conduct drawn up Kaspa, Gilly and the rest for Australian cricket...


I wonder...where does sledging and appealing for non-existent edges fit into this Moral Code?

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

It doesn't really bother me either way to be honest. The instances when players who don't walk get away with it (so to speak) will be balanced out when decisions don't go in their favour when they should do.

I'm not sure that things today are very different to how they were in the past and that there is a great deal of gazing back upon supposed halcyon days through rose-tinted specs. I am sure that there has never been a time when every batsman walked and bowlers/fielders never appealed speculatively.

"They're here to watch me bat, not you bowl" or words to that effect.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

If you know you clipped the ball - and usually I think batsmen do know, don't they? - then it is not only unsporting to stand your ground, it is cheating.

OF

Whilst I respect your opinion on this, sometimes one has to look at the wider implications that walking or not walking creates. I have been and continue to be a big admirer of Nasser Hussain, and naturally when his autobiography came out I bought it. In it he relates a story early in his career playing a game for England where he nicked a ball, and knew he nicked it, but was given not out. He then went on to make a hundred and virtually confirmed his place in the England side, and the rest as we say is history. What might have happened to Nasser Hussain and his England career had he been given out that time? This just proves that in Cricket, just like any other sport, you sometimes need that little bit of luck that it takes to be successful. Remember, Hussain was plagued by a rediculous run of poor decisions against him towards the end of his England career, which more than made up for some of the decisions that went in his favour.

Batsmen have no comeback when they're given out incorrectly, and simply have to accept the decision, likewise, they are quite within their rights to stand their ground on an 'appeal' and await the umpires decision, I do not see this as 'cheating' merely playing the game according to the Cricket Laws.

I beleive 'walking or not walking' is moralistic decision that each individual needs to decide themselves.

Incidentaly, Hussain's autobiography is a fascinating read.

[Occasional Fan]

All fair comments, Scott. As GW said above, there has probably never been an era in cricket when all batsmen walked if they knew they were out and no bowlers ever made speculative appeals. The world might just be a bit too perfect if that had been the case (though there would always have been a few other wrinkles to iron out!). I'm sure, though, that Nass must have looked into his conscience, even if only for a second, and maybe found it a little less white than Gilchrist (only on this specific issue: Gilchrist himself is no angel, I guess).

I might pick up Nasser's book when I am next in England. The Guardian reviews it this morning, somewhat unkindly saying at the end that Hussain is troubled by many things, including the English language. I mean to say - that's a bit thick coming from The Grauniad!

[Ernest]

Cricket OF in my opinion is a game of chance, how many times does a player think he has been given out on an unjust LBW call, or knew he had not nicked the ball.

Not walking just levels up the playing field, umpires job to lift his finger.IMHO.

Ern