what is your view on batsmen walking?

Question

give reasons why

Answer 1

The Law for a catch doesn't say the batsman is out when the Umpire gives him the dreaded finger, it says he's out when he hits the ball and it is caught fairly. My view is that walking before the Umpire makes a decision is the "right" thing to do!
It's "character" building in a world where cheats in many amateur and professional sports are tolerated, but never appreciated.

I was a batsman and played local league cricket for more than 30 years. Honestly, I "walked" whenever I knew I had been caught fairly. I always believed in two things:
1. Any runs I could have scored after being given not-out would not have given me anything to brag about later, nor a good night's sleep and
2. staying there would have lost me many friends. Certainly having a drink with the other side after a game wouldn't be so friendly if they knew you were a cheat!!

When watching the professional game, however, I can forgive professionals who always wait for the Umpire's decision - provided they walk off without protest when he gets it wrong and gives "Out!" and stay on without smiling when he also gets it wrong and gives "Not out!". They have top class, professional Umpires to make those close decisions and playing for a living is a world different to playing the "gentleman's sport".

Answer 2

Honesty and fair play is well renowned in cricket, but if bowlers and wicketkeepers are appealing at nearly everything, then why should a batsman walk?
Personally, I think many batsmen do start to walk back to the pavilion when they know they are out, but at times the stakes are very high.
Imagine final test of the series, you are on 99, your team is chasing a target, you get the smallest nick behind, you know you have the chance of getting away with it, you are not just going to walk!

Answer 3

Ideally, all batsman should walk if they know in their hearts that they are out.

But in practice, few do..sadly. Especially Aussies, who would not even walk if the ball deflected at 90 degrees off their bat into the gully's hands and made a snick that could be heard in South America!!!! Cheats, the lot of 'em.

Answer 4

Personally, I believe you should walk but if you do and others don't your team is at a disadvantage.

Statistically, you're probably given out when you're not a very similar amount to when you're not given out when you are, it should balance.

However, I believe that the 3rd umpire should be given power to overrule in such cases - much fairer all round.

Walking or not, I certainly don't think it is appropriate to ADMIT to not walking. Lots of youngsters look up to cricketers and it isn't a good example to set to young people.

Answer 5

Personally, I feel that if the quickie's done his job, the batsman should be limping!!! Seriously, though, the problem is that as fielders/bowlers sometimes appeal even if they know that the batsman should be in, why should a batsman walk in all but the most blatantly obvious situations - if you could guarantee honesty all round then fine, but as this is no longer the 19th century...

Answer 6

i think they should walk. if everyone stood around waiting the game would descend into a farce. to make it more interesting why not take runs off a team whos player didnt walk when they clearly have nicked the ball. award runs if a player claims a catch thats a bum ball.

Answer 7

I'm a fan - cricket is still a gentleman's game and if you know that you've nicked one then walk. Some of the top players walk and I'd love it if more did.

Answer 8

i don't think batsmen should. it's the umpires job to give the person out or not and if they get it wrong then that's their fault. over a career it will even itself out with the number of decisions going for or against you, except if your name is andrew strauss!

Answer 9

i think you should walk if you know your out. its the right thing to do

Answer 10

It is an example of good sportsman spirit.