To walk or not to walk

[Maranello]

It is interesting that for some us, walking or not walking is a moral issue - "if you know you have touched the ball, you walk"... whilst for others, the moral high ground lies in doing one's best for one's team and one's country, and not letting your mates down.

I agree, the first type of morality resonates more with many of us, due to its Old Testament roots ("Thou Shall Not Lie"), but the more I think about this, the more I feel that the second reasoning is equally valid. After all, a player has a bond or a pact with his team - they rely on him, and he relies on them. The team ethic is what binds these men together, and is the unwritten code of all International crickters. Teams are important in other forms of life too, eg, the US Marine Corps - never leave behind a fallen Marine, etc - not because it will allow them a great military advantage, but because it is the moral thing to do, to stand by your fellow Marines. Similarly, one could argue that cricketers should not make individual decisions which endanger the team or which are harmful to the team's prospects. Many of us would say that there is nothing in moral in choosing to leave one's team mates in the lurch.

I voted No to this question, because in the narrow context of the modern professional game as it is played now, one or two players occasionally and selectively choosing to walk is a bad thing, as Bucknor has pointed out. In a wider context, I am almost ambivalent about the question. As a person of faith, it is tempting for me to get on the moral high horse, and demand Qur'anic or Biblical standards of honesty, where everyone walks when they touch the ball, no one appeals unnecessarily, no one lies or pretends to lie, and so on. However, there seem to be perfectly valid moral reasons for not walking too, as the previous paragraph of this post tries to show.

I was thinking along these lines earlier today when I remembered reading an interesting article by Amit Verma a few months ago on the moral dimension of cricket. Will present some extracts below, the full article can be read here. In particular, I found the moral experiement very interesting and thought provoking - it only goes to show that the whole debate about walking or not walking is not as clear-cut as some of us have made out on this thread, and to be unsure about great moral dilemnas is often the most sensible approach. (apologies for the lengthy extracts, but they do highlight some interesting and divergent viewpoints).

If Gilchrist did the right thing, then it must be asked, what is right? Is it playing strictly by the rules of the game and doing whatever is permissable within them to win? Is it following our inner conscience? Is there a moral dimension to cricket distinct from the laws of the game? By what yardstick do we determine what should be our behaviour on a cricket field?

Consider this thought experiment, one that students of moral philosophy will be familiar with (I quote from an article on wikipedia.org):

1. A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

2. A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

The decision, as posed, has to be taken immediately. Most people, through the years, have instinctively answered 'yes' to the first question and 'no' to the second, even though the end result of both decisions – sacrificing one person's life to save the life of five others – is exactly the same. These are instinctive responses. Why is our brain wired to react thus?

Mukul Kesavan, in an essay that had appeared in the January 2002 issue of Wisden Asia Cricket, says:

Morally, there's no difference between a batsman who chooses to stay, knowing that he is out, and a wicketkeeper who appeals against a batsman knowing he isn't. Even those who admire the hard men for standing their ground – arguing that things even out, that every time you're given not out when you are, there's a matching occasion on which you are given out when you aren't – recognise that this is an argument from experience, not principle, and, less charitably, a shabby piece of rationalisation.

This is what Mike Brearley says in The Art of Captaincy:

Claiming a catch when you know that the ball has bounced strikes me as plain cheating, as there are solid grounds for distinguishing between this practice and staying in, as a batsman, when you know that you were out. The main difference lies in the passivity of the latter. You are, by virtue of the appeal, placed in the dock; you stand accused; it seems reasonable to wait for judgement, and not to give yourself up. It is not the case that the only alternative to a plea of guilty is one of not guilty. By contrast, the quasi-catcher has to initiate the process of indictment by an appeal.

Laws evolved to codify and enforce the morals of society; the laws of cricket, therefore, can be said to have been framed to contain within them all the rules by which our behaviour on the field is governed. Is it valid, then, to judge teams on the basis of any other moral code (and other moral codes would also differ subtly, depending on where you're from)?

[Zainub]

Billy Bowden has encouraged both teams to take the fielder's word when it comes to close catches ahead of Australia's first Test against Pakistan at Perth. He said to Fox Sports that he welcomed any agreement between both teams that encouraged fair play.Bowden wanted to see loyalty and integrity return, but thought it was a decision best left to players. "I don't mind players not walking if they hit it, that's fine, it's up to them. But when it's a black-and-white decision about whether they've been caught or not, surely, if you can't rely on a player what can you rely on in a game of cricket these days?" Full report here

[greg]

I have always walked and we ended up losing a game by 1 run last season when i walked needing 8 to win,half my teammates slaughtered me but the older ones backed my decision.I'd rather win fairly than cheat to win.My conscience was clear that night even if the 14 year old who was last out was close to tears thinking he had thrown away the game.

[Aussie-Yank]

Maranello, enjoyed the thesis.

I admire Gilchrest for his stance on walking when he knows he is out, but I also admired Steve Waugh's stance on waiting for the umpire to give him out (Classic example against SA in the world cup). The reason I admire Steve is that he was the captain of Australia and he allowed his players to make that decision for them selves. He did not lay the law down and state you do not walk.

I answered yes to the question, but Maranello's point of how you view the question does change your mind. The good of one verus the good of many. I suppose Gilchrest is the good of one, where Steve Waugh could be considered both (As he personally wanted to win the World Cup, but he was also the savour for Australia).
To me, it comes down to the players beliefs and I hold no player in disregard for holding there ground until given out. That is there right as a player.

[Collyisamackem]

Bowlers put pressure on the umpire by appealing, so why shouldn't the batsman be allowed to respond in kind and put pressure on by not walking if he doesn't feel he is out? If they know, on the other hand, that there was a nick or whatever for a catch, then they should walk. If in doubt though, stand your ground.

[Leafy Seadragon]

My thinking is that if you expand the line of thought "the good of one V the good of many" to its full implications, you walk for the betterment of all cricketers. Simply, if all batsmen walked, the game would be easier to umpire, there would probably be less umpiring mistakes and greater consistency. I say probably because I'm uncertain about very faint touches and whether a batsman would feel them, but an understandable reluctance to walk (did I touch it?) may be interpreted by an umpire as a clear statement. I would align this approach with vaccination - not everyone would do it regardless of moral implications, yet provided enough did it, the everyone benefits and those that don't risk isolation.

I have always walked, the last time to much team detriment. Its little consolation for the oppposition to come up afterwards and acknowledge the gesture (particularly when the umpire pointed out that there was a fair bit of doubt about the catch - first time I've been abused by an umpire). Having said this, I like many others in this discussion, respect those that choose not to. Again, its a little frustrating when you know you had the match-winning batsman out early, but sports not fair; deal with it.
Yes, I know players's careers are on the line and that one crucial decision may end it. That's part of a career at the top in any field. If you've done enough, then one or two mistakes by someone else won't end it. If you've left it that much in the balance, then you've got to live with the fact that life and sport ain't fair.

IMO, if all batsmen walked when they edged, their destiny would be in their own hands every time they were in a tight position (okay, other than LBW)

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Collyisamackem

Bowlers put pressure on the umpire by appealing, so why shouldn't the batsman be allowed to respond in kind and put pressure on by not walking if he doesn't feel he is out? If they know, on the other hand, that there was a nick or whatever for a catch, then they should walk. If in doubt though, stand your ground.

I agree with what you say. If the batsman knows he has edged it and knows the catch is clean he should walk, no doubt about it. But if the batsman has any doubt about whether he is out then the umpire should do his job and express his opinion. There's no problem with the batsman standing his ground so long as he starts walking when the dreaded finger goes up!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Lemming

If the batsman knows he has edged it and knows the catch is clean he should walk, no doubt about it.

Problem here is the umpire has a better view than a batsman, yes a batsman knows if he has edged it or not, but facing a bowler of say Harmisons pace, how could a batsman facing the wrong way, would know if a slip had caught it cleanly.

Originally Posted by Leming

But if the batsman has any doubt about whether he is out then the umpire should do his job and express his opinion. There's no problem with the batsman standing his ground so long as he starts walking when the dreaded finger goes up!

Quite right, I think the umpire should be the sole judge, at all times, the onus should never be on a batsman to walk.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Ernest

and with all this big screen aid, and 3rd umpires, there should be no neen for players to walk

I must admit a fair degree of scepticism in listening to concerns that any player is unlucky. Funnily, these calls (my own included) seem to align fairly closely with our own personal allegiences. Even the survey that was undertaken, referred to elsewhere, seems fundamentally flawed (at least from my understanding of the scope).

Hallelujah! We have this new-fangled technology that will solve all our problems. Or do we? Which technology?

• Camera replays run-outs - very useful, although higher speed cameras and better angles are still required. After a few early mistakes, umpires now routinely use them. Tick
• Camera replays catches - after initial clamour for their use are being increasingly recognised as questionable, even by the players. Question mark
• Snickometer - based on short, high frequency sound wave package (catch) V long, low frequency (pad). Problem is, several other things cause similar wave packages and the gloves sound more like a pad than a bat. Potential is there, but not convincingly so yet. Question mark
• Hawkeye - I have repeatedly been told that there is a margin of error in this prediction of a ball width, many times by the same commentators suggesting that a batsman 'might have been a bit lucky' because Hawkeye shows the ball would have hit the outside of one stump. A ball width margin of error means that you can't be sure unless the ball's at least clipping middle stump. Now, the margin of error is talking about the worst case scenario, but what happened to 'batsman receives benefit of the doubt'? So we need to be given a probability and we can then set up a regulation that above a certain confidence limit (say 90%) we give the batsman out, becasue the approach of nominal numerical limits has worked so well for arm flexing regulations. Cross

So in the technology stakes, as they stand now, I'd say the administrators have got it just about right. The two aspects that apply directly to catches are questionable. In more serious moments , the commentators might occasionally refer to this, but they seem to forget it and regard the technology as perfect the next time a close call is made. Not everyone and not always admittedly, but its a gadget, they're men; what can you expect?

[Leafy Seadragon]

Here's a thought - should the umpire be able to ask the batsman whether they hit it?