Cricket Questions - To walk or not to walk - Part 1 - Opinion
Cricket is aptly considered to be a gentleman’s game by those who have played it, witnessed it or felt it in its true essence. No sport in history has followed an acknowledged set of ethics and etiquette as has the sport of cricket since its inception. The
game is one of the finest in the world in terms of adhering towards certain principles and ensuring that fair play is adhered to in every possible way. Of all the roles that cricket players play, the role of the batsman is the most integral in ensuring that
vindictiveness and controversy on the pitch are well and truly avoided.
Yet an issue which has polarized opinion in modern time would be the decision to walk if the verdict goes in favor of the batsman. In modern consumerist times, walking after a verdict is made is considered to be a product of the batsman’s own discretion
and has little to do with ethics or conformity for that matter. This fact has been reiterated in an era, where the advent of technology has belittled the significance of decisions made by the umpire. It is fair to say however, that in previous times, controversy
would beset the field if the batsman was given out incorrectly. Nowadays, LBW decisions and obvious nicks behind to the wicket keeper are often shunned away by audacious umpires, much to the misfortune of the bowlers. In history only a handful of batsmen have
been known to walk, and fewer would be known to defy the odds after an erroneous decision has been made. One of them was http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Australia-c746.
Gilchrist’s notoriety for power hitting almost stands in stark contrast to his numerous decisions to walk when given not out by the umpire. The destructive Australian opener made history by walking to a call by umpire http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Rudolf-Eric-Koertzen-c87075, which was given not out
off the bowling of http://www.senore.com/Cricket/RT-Ponting-c2377, was quick to question Gilchrist
over his decision to walk, yet what amazed everyone was the calmness of the man and his audacity to acknowledge that he had touched the ball in an adrenaline charged encounter.
That incident marked an important point in world cricket and polarized opinion like no other. In times when batsmen would refuse to budge if a controversial decision had taken place against them, Gilchrist managed to set the benchmark for walking with dignity.
It became a laudable example for those who were frustrated at the many quirks that have been witnessed on the field in recent times. Yet for a man such as Gilchrist, his walking spree managed to invite its share of controversy by those who would believe that
their careers were at stake.
One has to feel sorry for Gilchrist. The wicket keeper batsman had been quoted as feeling very uncomfortable in the dressing room and being isolated over his assertion that one should walk if he knew that he was out. His trod back to the pavilion on numerous
occasions would often be met with a shake of the head from his contemporaries.
Continued in Part 2...
Disclaimer: Any views and opinions expressed in this article are solely of the author and do not represent Bettor.com's official editorial policy.
Tags: