Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs - To walk or not to walk

Much is made of professionalism being the source of all skulduggery, that the amateur occupies loftier moral terrain, but this is purest balderdash. Have you ever watched a game of golf or tennis between a pair of club hacks? Are Sunday morning soccer games on Hackney Marshes any less filthy than the Premiership shenanigans down the road at White Hart Lane? One member of the Walking Lobby expressed the view that the pursuit of money – in individual and collective terms - lies at the heart of the dishonesty that underpins the philosophy of the Non-Walkers. But could not the same be said of any journalist who declines to credit his or her sources and instead presents facts and quotes obtained by others as their own handiwork? I’ll willingly hold my hand up to that one.

Once upon a time, or so Derek Birley related in his myth-busting book, The Willow Wand, walking evolved as a symbol of the class divide, a means by which a batsman asserted his social and moral superiority over umpires and bowlers alike, both of whom almost invariably hailed from less privileged stock. Bowlers served; umpires gave batsmen the benefit of any doubt. To give oneself out was the sign of a gentleman, not a player.

As if this weren’t objectionable enough, the cracks in the custom were soon apparent. If a batsman had made 100, he was a good deal more likely to walk than if he had struggled to 10. Some manipulated the system, walking just often enough to acquire a reputation for integrity and thus sowing more than sufficient seeds of doubt among umpires, and hence derive the benefit whenever they chose not to walk. How blissfully ironic that one of the Walking Lobby’s latest attempts at persuasion should take place during Monday’s annual Cowdrey Lecture at Lord’s: Colin Cowdrey, after all, was notorious for having it both ways.

Ken Barrington walks off. Or pretends to... © Getty Images

The Walking Lobby had its biggest field day in Cape Town at the turn of 1965. In the third Test, infuriated by the refusal of Eddie Barlow to do what he and his colleagues believed to be the decent thing, that proudest and most patriotic of Poms, Ken Barrington, walked on 49 when he knew his apparent glance to the keeper might have eluded umpire Warner. To make a point. Not so much, perhaps, that walking was morally correct, more that, even if the opposition were rotters, an Englishman knew how to do the right thing.

Which brings us back to Dhoni. Gone, inevitably, are the days when batsmen took fielders at their word. Why should they? Libel laws probably mean that I cannot describe the catch Steve Waugh claimed off Brian Lara at the start of the dynasty-ending 1995 Worrell Trophy series – replays left viewers in no doubt whatsoever that the ball had bounced first – in the manner I would ideally like. On the other hand, it would be naïve to propose that this was endemic of a new, cancerous strain of cynicism. So long as fielders have been permitted to appeal, there has been a desire to persuade by dishonest means. As Mike Atherton astutely noted from the Lord’s commentary booth, Pietersen’s edge flew into the upper part of Dhoni’s horizontal glove – a sure sign to any experienced keeper that it had kissed the turf first.

That Adam Gilchrist walked in the 2003 World Cup semi-final was profoundly admirable, no two ways about it. But it was an act of protest – at global perceptions of allegedly over-competitive, under-scrupulous Australians - that stemmed from a secure base. There was plenty of batting to come and his side were the world’s best by a mile or three. Had Sri Lanka won that day, it is hard not to wonder whether he would have copped some flak from his bemused teammates. It bears remembering that Glenn Hoddle, then England soccer manager and born-again Christian, castigated Robbie Fowler after the striker confessed to having dived to win a penalty for Liverpool, then purposely fluffed the resultant spot-kick.

A letter published in Thursday’s Times proffered the obverse side of the coin: if walking becomes de rigeur, does that mean that the batsman has every right to refuse to venture pavilion-wards if he disagrees with the umpire’s decision, which is supposed, is it not, to be the final word?

Lest we forget, those men in white coats are paid a pretty penny these days to dispense such wisdom. Recent statistics, moreover, revealed that, at Test level, they get decisions right comfortably more than 90% of the time. So let them get on with it. They get more than enough help as it is.

Well done Rob Steen for speaking up. We should take a large vat of weedkiller to the perennial nasty that is the debate on whether or not batsman should fall on their own swords.
CMJ and others are living in a fantasy world if they think walking would be healthy for the game. Firstly it would see an end to the great innings, double centuries and upwards would be all but obliterated from the game if the odd nick behind wasn't studiously ignored by the man in the middle.
Secondly, if one particular cricketer does make it known that he is a walker what is to stop that cricketer on 99* staring incredulously from the gloveman to the umpire after the nicked ball has been taken on the grounds that because he always walks, the umpire on this occasion should trust his integrity.
And thirdly we just no longer live in a world where honesty is the best policy. Cricketers have to get on as well and if they walk every time they get an edge on the ball without waiting for the umpire's decision, most of them wouldn't get past 50.
Besides the bad decisions go both ways and speaking for myself, I enjoy northing more than observing the wry smile on an English batters face when they've got away with one - it makes my day.

Maybe Dhoni had a right to appeal as you say. But the fact was it bounced and the indians tried to deceive the umpire, which was loathsome. The same applies to Graeme Hick's one bounce catch in the slips to dismisss Vikram Rathore (A specialist edger ) or moin Khan's appeals after a one bounce catch had been held off Ganguly at the famous chennai test.

In the end its not about the team or the umpire or the scoreboard. Its about the spectator. If I see a ball bouncing and I am told thats out caught I would rather watch WWE.

If players are not willing to play fair we should hit them where it hurts ..in their pockets....

If players need not be accountable, then why have an umpire. Each decision can be made automatically through TV and players can appeal to stumpy or lumpy or whatever loathsome graphic they come up with.

Any one who claims a one bounce catch should be fined his entire match fee, for deceiving ME the SPECTATOR !!!!

The very word "Cricket" distinguishes the sport of gentlemen from that of ruffians and riffraff. It is not the question whether to walk or not when the batsman knows he is out, but should a cricketer be honest at times or not. I have palyed this game for over 40 years (obviously not very well or you would know who I am) and this is what I learned as to how the game should be played. If only the fielder know that the ball has crossed the boundary, he should signal to indicate that. If one has dropped a catch, one should let all know. If an umpire indicate that catch has not been made even though the fielder know it has been or batsman is out although the batsman know he is not, these are the times to honor the game and walk without argument. I am a avid fan of all sports, but Cricket is Cricket (or was?). We remember fondly the honorable men and their deeds of honor. We also remember those who were otherwise. Arguments in favor of how it is do not hold water when gentlemen in all of know how it should be.

The more I read your writing, the more I am convinced that you will soon become my favourite cricket writer. Once again, wonderful article.

To add to the discussion, I have always refuted the school of thought that espouses cricket to occupy a higher moral and ethical plane in comparison to other sports. It is presumably the basis upon which the nonsensical cliches of our beloved game - "The Gentleman's game", "It's not cricket" and the ever popular "against the spirit of cricket" - were founded.

It is also presumably the basis upon which the premise for CMJ's lecture was founded. While the issue of walking is an emotive one - and I have nothing but the highest respect for the cricketers who walk willingly, moreso in the most important of games (Gilchrist being the most outstanding example - I agree with you: leave it to the umpire. If the umpire's word is supposedly final, and his word gives you another life line, why not take it?

No other sport demands its players pay heed to such silly ill-defined moral standards. Why should cricket?

My dear Rob,

With all due respect, its people like you who make me fear that cricket might soon become a game like rugby or football, where anything and everything goes and people come to blows because someone cheats and tries to hide it.

Let's be clear about it. I'm not advocating the concept of a 'gentleman's game'. What I'm advocating is fair play. What I'm advocating is a pleasurable experience for both the viewer and the player. Any contest won by plain determined hard work gives more pleasure to the viewer and the competitor than one won by cheating.

Pietersen walked cause he had nicked it. Only a blind man would not have called that a nick. Dhoni celebrated cause he thought he'd caught it. To be fair, I think that he should have appealed instead of celebrating straight away. But then again, you can't argue that he knew he hadn't taken a clean catch. It happened in a fraction of a second, he was diving full length, and if you view the replays, his view of the ball was obstructed by his own gloves. Further, the ball bounced so close to him that it probably landed where the gloves ended and ground began. He would have felt the impact on his fingers, and assumed that the ball had bounced on his fingers.

In my view, it was up to the umpires to take action and verify that the catch was legal. Which is what the eventually did. Had told Pietersen to wait and checked earlier, none of this would have happened. Again, Pietersen walked because the umpires did not have any problem when the catch was claimed.

Oh, yes and I can't help but agree with Said Chaudhry's reply. Funny how you Brits will go to such great lengths to show subcontinental players in such bad light. You will latch on to straws to make a huge issue out of it. When was the last time you criticized Australia's 'psychological warfare' (read friendly banter) or Ashley Gilles' '5-feet-outside-leg' line to the Indians in 2002? Have you ever written an article in praise about the fact that Sachin Tendulkar, the man with the most runs in international cricket, always walks?

Mr. Srivathsan you have given Dhoni the benefit of doubt and that is your patriotism speaking and, I won't blame you for that. Having watched that match live and seeing the so-called catch it in real time, I was sure that the ball didn't carry to Dhoni's glove and when I saw Simon raising his finger I was shocked at his decision. The replay confirmed he was not out, hence the decision was reversed. It is the technology that proved to be helpful in this case. As regards claiming of the catch as a genuine one, I won't blame Dhoni alone, all the close-in fielders got extremely emotional and appealed with similar zeal and enthusiasm 'coz they all badly wanted Pieterson's prized wicket. Simon Taufel's judgment was impaired, after all he is a human being, if he had said, "not out" it would have gone down as an appeal turned down and that's it. And we wouldn't have been discussing the issue of morality and cheating. I am of the opinion that cricket should be played in its true spirit and that is why it is called as a gentleman's game. That is another issue of morality when a gentleman cheats it is not referred as cheating but, it is considered as an attribute of the gentleman's quality and they say: 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.'

Firstly let me say I'm not a walker and I don't have time for cricketers who do walk. I have even less time for cricketers that occasionally walk. I can also honestly say that I have never question an umpire's decision when I do not feel I am out. I firmly believe that the umpire is always right and I have never shown any dissent to any umpire and hope I never will. We've all had good and bad decisions and we need to accept them whether we agree or not. The questioning of the umpire's decision by Pieterson at the behest of the England balcony was in my view disgraceful. I've seen KP not walk on a few occasions and I think good luck to him as he'll get bad ones too. Gilchrist's actions need to be put in to context; he was asked in an interview would he walk if Australia need 2 runs to win the World cup with 9 wickets down and he then nicked it, would he walk? his response is all telling "i wouldn't nick it".
Walking is a selfish act; its a team game and batsman are there to score runs for their team. Its not for them to decide when they want to stop scoring runs, its for the umpire to decide when he is no longer allowed to stay at the wicket to score more runs.
The most serious point is that walking undermines the umpire. They are there to do a job just as the 22 cricketers are there to do a job. Its always been said there are several ways that a batsman can be dismissed..bowled, caught, LBW etc, but there is actually only way that a batsman is out, and that is when the umpire raises his finger.

Not sure why there are so many emotional replies to your post. I guess, that's because morality is in question here :).
Dhoni is a -
Cheat => if he appealed despite knowing that the ball had grazed the ground.
Cheat => if he had doubts about the ball grazing the ground and still appealed.
Not a cheat => if he was actually convinced that ball didn't graze the ground and hence appealed.

This logic applies to all - batsmen, bowlers, fielders and wicketkeepers alike.

Rationally speaking, we don't know what is in player's mind when he, incorrectly or correctly, appeals or walks or doesn't walk. If the player is convinced about his observations and makes a decision based on that, then he should not be labelled a cheat just because replay proved otherwise.

To walk or not-walk (or to appeal or not appeal) is entirely upon player's situational judgement and we should verify them on rational, not moral, grounds.

"Posted by: tinker 1 week, 4 days ago

Gilchrist walked in a semi final on a dodgy pitch, it's a joke to say he only walked because he knew his team were so good they could still win without him.

Don't attack the one honest man in cricket just to make your case for the crooks."

Anyone who has seen a decent amount of Australian cricket would never make the mistake of thinking that Adam Gilchrist is an honest man on the field. He walks when he wants to and he stands when he wants to, and he abuses other players for not walking even after replays have shown conclusively that they were, in fact, NOT out. Adam Gilchrist has his own agenda. If he wants to walk then let him, but do not confuse his walking at a blatant edge with honesty as he has on many numerous occasions stood very still after having made a faint tickle. If a player walks then great, more power to him, but if a player doesn't walk then he is doing nothing wrong. He is simply allowing the umpires to do their job. They are PAID good money to make these descisions. Sometimes they get them wrong, but the majority of the time they get them right and if you have any complaints about dodgey umpiring.. I suggest you take some lessons, step onto a field and see if you can do any better. Walk or don't walk, it makes NO difference to the game. Let the unmpires do their job.

well as far as fan of indian cricket.. i personally think it individual choice wether to live or not... for last 8 years i have seen so many players given out on wrong decision..so sometimes players thinks that way.. but as a cricket lover concern i really favour that player must walk away whenever they feells they r out...... i think in todays cricket australian wicketkepper batsman gilli is the best example for this.. i really admire n respect this cricketer.. no one can forget the semis of 2003 world cup when he wals off without waiting for umpire decision on the bowling off a spiner... i dont think even the umpire know that time that he's out... i dont think any other cricketer will do the same on that critical situation.. i personally thinks crickters like gilli should be given awards.. to still making cricket a genetelsman game.. otherwise its just only in words .cricket 's no more a genetels man game now.... hats off to gilli...i think all other crickters should take a lesson from him.... most other australians dont have same personality.. but in my perosonal opinon gilli is great in this aspect.. all n all walking off is good but it should leave on individuals... because sometimes umpires also make huge wrong decisions..

As an American, who may be thereby disqualified from having a relevant opinion, I wonder
whether the very word "appeal", nearly unique to cricket (yes, in baseball there are
situations where a player may be given out only if there is an appeal, but those situations
are rather unusual), may not have some relevance. The presumption carried by the word seems to be that a batsman knows when he is out and will act accordingly. If this be correct,
then the umpire is there only as a higher authority to which appeal can be made if the
batsman does not carry out his obligation, whether due to dishonesty or to ignorance (as with a catch behind or a run-out he can't see because he is more or less face down sliding toward his ground).

Now, if the umpire was invented to protect the fieldsmen in cases of dishonesty or ignorance
on the part of a batsman, then it seems that a symmetrical presumption would be that an appeal will not be made unless the fieldsmen making the appeal have reason to believe that the batsman is out.

Of course, one might argue whether these presumptions were ever valid even when the ball was bowled underarm on a village green. And at the speed of today's game...well, it must not
infrequently be the case that neither the fieldsmen nor the batsman can really say with any
degree of certainty whether the batsman was lbw; and from what I read, often in such cases
neither do the umpires have a clue--but someone has to decide. Perhaps the very concept of
having to appeal for an out is obsolete, and the practice used in baseball should be adopted: if the umpire sees that a man is out, he gives him out; and otherwise he is not out, regardless of what anyone else may have observed.