No walking off the pitch

By Orville Higgins

It has always been one of the most hotly debated topics in cricket, whether a batsman should 'walk' or not - if he feels he is out, and not wait on an umpire's decision.

The issue was brought back to the front burner when Benjamin Stokes walked for a catch at the wicket during the just-concluded ODI series against the West Indies. Walking is supposed to be the quintessential display of honesty by the batsman, but I personally feel it shouldn't happen, and shouldn't even be allowed!

For a batsman to walk after the umpire says not out, for instance, is, to my mind, openly questioning the competence of the umpire. The old tenet that the umpire's word is final must stand, not only when the decision goes against you, but also when it works in your favour.

I can live with the review system, where a player, under the rules, asks the TV umpires to have a second look. Quite often, the review system shows that the right decision was made initially and the umpire is completely vindicated.

In any case, there is a world of difference between asking the officials to take a second look at a decision that was arrived at, and walking, which is really saying, "I believe that the decision you gave was nonsense and I'm not subscribing to it."

In every other sport, you accept the rule of the official, even if you know that the official blundered in your favour. If the referee in football gives your team a penalty even though you didn't believe it was warranted, or that the infringement took place outside the box, what do you do? You spot the ball and kick the ball, preferably hard and low inside the post! To refuse to take the penalty under such circumstances should surely result in a player being sent off for insubordination.

If you believe you picked the start in a 100m race and the officials didn't call you back, do you stop and say I won't run the race because I have too much morals and scruples about me, or do you go as hard as possible for the line?

Gentleman's game?

Cricket, we are told, is different because it's supposedly a 'gentleman's game'. That's just nonsense. No more gentlemen play cricket now than any other sport. That statement is a cliché harking back to the days when the English gentry played the game, but even so, it's a misnomer.

The man who did more than any other to popularise cricket into a national and social pasttime in England, and by extension the rest of the world, was no gentleman on the cricket field. The crowds flocked to see him play and preferred him rather than the English aristocrats. For those who don't know, do some research on the great W.G. Grace and find out the things he did on a field. He surely was no walker, and he would clearly pour scorn on those who do now.

I have put forward the case of an umpire calling, and signalling, a wide in a one-day game for a ball that goes down the leg side. The batsman then walks off under the impression that he got a touch. What should the scorers now do? The scorers are there to reflect in the book what they were told by the umpires. If the umpire signals six, even though everybody sees it's four, the scorers must record six.

Since a batsman can't be out caught behind to a wide ball, the scorers would be working against the umpire's instruction if they were to record caught behind. I believe in such a case, the batsman should be recorded 'retired out'. The umpire should tell the walking batsman that he should not walk under that circumstance.

If the batsman insists on going, caught behind can't be the mode of dismissal. Surely, the umpire can't now change his signal from a wide merely because the batsman walks! The tail would now be wagging the dog!

In games without third umpires, a batsman who has a reputation for walking and who doesn't walk on a particular decision can always incite the crowd into thinking the umpire cheated, even if the batsman is out. The logic would be that the batsman would not hang around when he knows he is out, and therefore the umpire would be either incompetent or corrupt to give him out when he isn't prepared to walk.

I say, no walking. Batsmen should accept the umpire's decision, be it good or bad.

Orville Higgins is a sportscaster with KLAS ESPN Sports FM. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.