When Stuart Broad recently tweeted, “Glorious day for our Team England golf at The Grove. Got buggies…”, he received a reply, “Still not walking, hey?”
The Broad ‘dismissal’ caused some outrage on the field, with his apparent audacity to stand his ground the cause for much angst with fans around the world.
His behaviour of not accepting his apparent fate was regarded widely as filthy cheating, a blight on the game, ‘it’s just not cricket’.
As understandable as this reaction was, the Khawaja ‘dismissal’ last night is a fabulous example of the alternate argument – the batsman’s perspective – of the right to not-walk.
I was by no means a quality cricketer. But as an opening batsman in grade cricket in Brisbane and in minor-counties in England over many years, I feel my experience can provide a reasonably informed argument on this.
I was a walker – much to my Australian team-mates’ disgust. A feathered edge and I’d ‘do the right thing’, put the bat under my arm and be on my way.
After one significantly run-barren season though, when I was certain I’d faced unfortunate decisions consistently throughout, I sat down with the scorecard and considered my dismissals types across the season.
I had been dismissed LBW on more occasions than all other dismissal types combined.
While this could be a technique issue, it was extremely out of character – I decided there was no possible way I was correctly adjudged on every occasion.
Reality dawned, my naivety waned, I decided to exercise my right not to walk.
Have you ever noticed that the furore evoked after a high profile non-walking tends to stem from the media and the public?
No Australian player publicly commented on Broad, they commented on the decision. Even Shane Warne congratulated Broad on his fortune rather than aim an attack his way.
Professional cricketers accept this as part of the game, are understandably pretty upset when it occurs for sure, but accept it as a batsman’s right.
Consider this now – and this I think is a key point to make. Over the course of even one day’s play, how many times does a fielding team appeal for a dismissal?
Do you seriously believe that every one of those players actually believes that it was in fact a wicket – or can you conceive that they are appealing out of hope – trying to influence the decision?
Why can’t appealing when you are confident it isn’t out, be considered ‘simply not cricket’?
Last night before the lunch break alone I counted England appeal, ponder to challenge via DRS but decide not to, on three occasions.
This is itself is a great example of how rarely a team will appeal for a dismissal without actually believing it to be a certain wicket.
This is what a batsman faces on every occasion he is at the crease. There is no way that on every occasion he is adjudged dismissed, that it is a correct decision.
Why should a batsman be the sole player on the field to have to ignore the good and accept the bad?
Just as a fielding team attempts for and wantonly accepts a poor umpiring decision, why can’t a batsman accept a little slice of luck when it comes their way?
Why can’t Khawaja, after last night’s debacle, now allow for karma to balance itself out and accept a fortunate decision when offered?
In short, he can, and should, and I hope he does.
swerve
Guest
Tex you are spot on. When players appeal they continually build pressure on a batsmen. What happens when one of those appeals gets a wicket when in reality the appealing team knows its not. Do they call them back? So why is a Batsmen who stands his ground a cheat? Have a close look at Devon Malcolms dismissal in the Warne Hat trick of some years ago, with todays close up technology and slow mo Devon would never have been given out. With all the new camera angles, slo mo, snicko, hot spot etc it just makes it all the more obvious.
Simon
Guest
Damian martyns career was destroyed by bad decisions and the ashes were lost in 2005 because of those bad decisions. DRS is better than leaving it up to humans. Even the players continue to get it wrong. It simply needs to be tweaked a little.
Deep Thinker
Guest
I think overappealing for dismissals is like faking injuries in soccer. It should be ironed out - but I'm not sure how. Batsmen should be forced to walk. If they don't walk and no benefit of the doubt can be given to them, they should be suspended. Batsmen (Michael Clarke included) say that umpires are there to make the decisions so it is their responsibility to get it right. But why make it harder for them to make that decision properly by pretending that they didn't hit it? It forces the game to go to DRS, and causes the game to be delayed. As for the 'what goes around, comes around' argument that batsmen will only suffer from bad decisions and won't get the benefit of bad decisions - that's what DRS is for. The major problem with DRS is that muppets like Dharmesena (ICC umpire of the year) are making the decisions. Otherwise, the system is quite good - although it needs a few tweaks here and there.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
You can't assess a team's belief in their appeals by their willingness to use the DRS. A decision could be mighty close but you would lose a review if it comes back as umpire's call. As the fielding team, you have to consider what the technology can show, irrespective of how confident you are about an appeal.
Disco
Roar Guru
Bit like a Watson LBW?
twodogs
Guest
Hey Tex. I immediately siezed upon a line late in your piece - in regards to karma and balance. In my time playing and watching, there seems to be a greater force than all of us, which provides the opportunity for balance. There also seems the propensity of humans to resist the natural forces of this 'balance', in all endeavors whether it be cricket, footy, finance etc. Yes, one day uzzy may get a howler which goes his way. My question is-' does the drs destroy the natural balance of human perception and, will itself provide balance over time'?
Lroy
Guest
Mate, that was plumb, he went back and across, hit right in line.. he knew the umps finger was coming anyway ;-)
AJ
Guest
That was Gordon Greenidge.
GiantScrub
Guest
Fair enough - thanks for clearing that up.
BargeArse
Guest
i have walked on an LBW once ... it mitched on middle and ran along the ground. I used to walk but that changed after i got out clipping a ball to square leg. the oppo's umpire came up to me after the game and said 'why did you walk? you hit a squeeze ball. it wasn't out'.
Brendon
Guest
Viv Richards walked on an LBW to Merv Hughes when he was on a hat-trick in Perth in the 88/89 series.
CRC
Guest
I have seen a guy walk for a LBW before, mind you the bowler had struck him several painful blows before that and the belief in our team was that he didn't want to get hit anymore so he walked ate next LBW appeal.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Big difference between walking on LBWs and walking after you've just cut the ball to first slip. I would always walk if I had knicked a ball as this was something within my power to know. In contrast it is much more difficult to be sure that you have been trapped in front. I am surprised that you would walk on LBWs, but then it sounds like you played at an infinitely highler level of cricket then I ever did. I do admit that the ho-ha comes from the public and media and not the players - they know it's a professional game and accept that walking is a thing of the past.
langou
Roar Guru
+1
TriangleFlatDog
Guest
When I had my turn at bat I was always a walker.....was kind of hard to stand there when the stumps were lying all over the ground!! :)
Hookin' YT
Guest
+1 Big knick onto pad and Blind Pew gives you out LBW. Miss the outsinger by a cm and clip your pad and Pew sends you again. Batting is hard enough and as a grade cricketer you only get one crack every couple of weeks. Stand and stare.
Boz
Guest
I agree. If anything, I would argue the Khawaja dismissal shows why a batsman should walk when they know they've nicked it. A guy that develops a reputation for doing the right thing and not cheating, would no doubt influence an umpires decision on an iffy appeal if he stands his ground.
Redmund
Guest
Sorry for the misunderstanding - I never walked for an LBW. It was the season that i was given LBW on more occasions than of all other dismissals combined that I decided, given on how many occasions I perhaps deserved benefit of the doubt - that I was naive & that all batsmen should take advantage of all fortune they receive.
GiantScrub
Guest
As yet another former opener, I find the example given by the author a bit baffling as I can't imagine being sure enough with a lbw decision to walk before being given. I don't think anybody begrudges a batsman in any form of cricket who doesn't walk for lbw, and I would in fact argue the opposite - if you walk from lbw decisions, there is no "fair play" involved and you are a numpty that has just effectively retired out. This is because your angle, position and concentration means you have less information than the umpire. Caught behinds are a completely different kettle of fish and shouldn't be mentioned in the same walking article as lbws. If you nick it, you pretty much know and so you have more information than the umpire. Huge difference.
Lroy
Guest
How many times were you given out caught behind when you missed it? AS a former opening batsman myself.. I never walked either.. you get enough dodgy decisions against you theres no point piling on the misery by walking when you might get a reprieve.