Talking about Walking

From Grant Harrison, United Kingdom
Cricket is not always a gentlemen’s game. The Bodyline series, Lillie-Miandad in 1981 and Vinoo Mankad spring to mind. Now and again there are exemplary moments too; the spirit of the 2005 Ashes for instance. And in between is a mixture of sledging and post-match lager, respect for authority and match fixing.

Giving players access to technology is bound to have its own effects on the game’s moral character. Some may already be discernible.

Amid all the drama there is a small gesture that is cricket’s stand out act of graciousness, walking. In many ways it epitomises the gentlemanly character of the game. It is honourable, humble, chivalrous. Yet although we nod deferentially to batsmen who walk, we remonstrate if our players are criticised for staying put after a convincing appeal. Bar a scattering of stumps, walking just isn’t expected however much it is admired. Standing until the umpire’s finger goes up has long been a right of batsmen everywhere.

So walkers are a rare breed. Giving oneself out is an unnecessary sacrifice, heroic beyond the vast majority of batsmen, whether at Lord’s or in the backyard. Walking may have an air of the saintly about it, but it also has a mild whiff of the foolish. A simple cost-benefit analysis shows that it just isn’t worthwhile.

Yet walking could become more common amid the confusion of the new decision-review system. If not to ensure right trumps wrong, then at least to save face. Given that technology can both vindicate and vilify players, they might be inclined to err on the side of fair play. Of many examples in the recent South Africa-Australia series, take Ricky Ponting in the first innings of the third test at Newlands.

With two referrals still in the bag, Ponting walked when he was given out caught behind off Albie Morkel. Looking at replays, there was evidence to suggest that Steve Bucknor may have been wrong. 'Hotspot' showed no mark and slow-mo no edge. Had Ponting asked for the referral, Bucknor may well have been overruled. The Australian captain assumed that Hotspot would reveal a nick. It would be a waste of a referral and incriminating. He knew he was out, so he walked.

There was no frustrating halt in play, no exasperation at the ambiguity of the referral system, no philosophical debate about the nature of ‘irrefutable evidence’. Whether motivated by fair play or prudence, moments like this illustrate how cricket’s spirit can also be its arbiter.

Obviously there will be occasions when batsmen do not know whether or not they are out, and they are right to leave it to the umpire to decide. Equally obvious is that there will be occasions when batsmen know they are out but there is no appeal from the fielding side. To expect them to walk in these cases is ambitious.

But when batsmen do know they are out – which happens more often than not – and the fielding side enquires, the ready availability of technology to prove that they are could give batsmen reason to depart of their own free will. This must be a good thing, for the success of the referral system and for the sake of cricket’s good name.

At the end of the day, there will always be a gap between the laws of cricket and the manner in which it should be played. If the new decision-review system gets the official go-ahead, the two might come just a little closer.