If it's not cricket what is it?

Cheat. Of all the insults and accusations that can be directed at a sportsman, being called a cheat is a barb that causes a deeper cut than any other abuse and much more likely to leave its indelible scar for the rest of a career. Recently cheating has taken up more than its fair share of column inches on the back pages of newspapers - Armstrong's use of drugs is making the headlines again, and a goal with the helping hand of Suarez has also exercised the the minds and attitudes of sports' journalists towards cheating.

 

But it was one obituary of Christopher Martin Jenkins ('CMJ') that, surprisingly, also included a cheating reference, for in his piece Michael Atherton said that CMJ, being a former amateur cricketer rather than an ex-professional (who now dominate cricket journalism), was the last cricket journalist who would walk if he thought he was out rather than wait for the umpire's decision. Simon Barnes took up the same theme and put forward his own code of conduct for walking - professional cricketers, whose livelihood is at stake, shouldn't be expected to walk nowadays whereas amateur batsmen are honour bound to do so. Barnes related a story of a friend who, having been given not out after nicking one to the keeper, was so ashamed and mortified that he did not walk, that he contrived to get himself out as quickly as possible. A clear cut code for Barnes perhaps but is it as straightforward as that for most of us?

 

When talking about 'not walking' we are, of course, only referring to the occasion when a batsman, perhaps, gives to the ball the thinnest of edges from his bat, or the merest feather of a touch from his glove, before it passes into the hands of the wicket keeper. The bowler and keeper are convinced the batsmen has hit the cover off the ball - they are sure there was a distinct noise and even a deflection - but the batsman stands his ground, the umpire shakes his head and, as the laws of the game determine, makes the decision that the batsmen is not out. Let us remember that the umpire's decision is also based upon giving the benefit of any doubt to the batsman - again as required by the laws.

 



“Just want to apologise for not walking off the ground tonight when I hit the ball. I was just so disappointed, my emotions got best of me” – Michael Clarke on Twitter.
The only time an Australian walks is when his car breaks down.

All of us have seen what, more often than not, happens next. Words are loudly and pointedly exchanged between the fielding side and sometimes comments are directed at the batsman. The implication, backed up by an accusation, is that the batsman is cheating by not walking. Every player knows that the laws do not oblige the batsman to admitting he touched the ball, give himself out, and walk off, but somehow the culture of cricket has evolved to put the onus on the batsman in this particular circumstance.

 

Is cricket alone amongst sports in having this strange code of honour that - let us remember - relates to only one of many ways in which a batsmen can be given out - for there is certainly no similar expectation that a batsman should give himself out for a run-out or stumping if the umpire decides otherwise? Golf is often cited as having the highest standard of code of self regulation on players - but such a code of conduct is enshrined in golf's vast array of rules - there is no umpire on hand to make such decisions. Tennis, hockey, American football, baseball, basketball, rugby, soccer, in fact any ball game with a referee or umpire, all do not require the players to make any decisions themselves - never mind anything as important as ending a player's own participation in the game.

 

Perhaps cricket likes to think it is special in having such an implied code of honour for its players? If so this is particularly odd now that DRS (the decision review system) is widely used in the professional game and players and umpires alike can see, that even with the help of sophisticated technology, how difficult it is to decide if a batsman has really hit the ball. Does the batsman himself always know if he touched the ball?

 

So where does that leave us, the amateur cricketers, in dealing with this legacy of honour handed down by players of yesteryear from a different time with different values? With due deference to Mr Barnes I don't think his code works for us so let me suggest an alternative approach that recognises the vagaries of amateur cricket and the 'professional' ethos of club league cricket today.

 

I think that if the umpires are qualified, independent and standing for the whole match, then a batsman has every right to stand his ground and wait for the umpire's decision for a catch behind. Of course a batsman may walk if he wants to but it should not be expected nor a cause for abuse if he doesn't - it's his choice. However if an umpire is only standing in to help out, is one of your own players, or is one of your club's umpires, then if you think you hit the ball and the catch behind was clean, then you should walk without waiting for the umpire's decision. My code is not about the standard of cricket being played but the status of the umpires. I think this is how the code of conduct started - it's just no fair to put that much pressure on a 'friendly' umpire. In fact, as our grandfathers would have said - it's just not cricket.