To Walk Or Not To Walk Is Not The Question

Among the plethora of controversial issues that were generated from the Sydney Test was the age-old debate of whether a batsman should walk when he knows he's out.

Ricky Ponting feels, as do the vast majority of cricketers, that its the umpires job to decide whether the batsman is out and one must accept whatever decision he gives, right or wrong.
Others, mostly spectators and journalists, argue that it is against the "spirit of cricket" to not walk. Cricket, they contend, has a reputation of being a "gentleman's game" and a cricketer is expected to do what is "right" irrespective of whether it goes in one's favour or against.

The rationale behind the first argument is that a batsman cannot do anything when he is given out wrongly. And therein lies the problem.

Batsmen feel that by not walking, the good and the bad decisions even out-- certainly over a batsman's career. However, it must be noted that this balance is achieved only through mistakes, that is, two wrongs making a right. Over the course of a match or even a series the balance could be entirely lop-sided possibly altering the very outcome of the contest and resulting in the kind of acrimony that we witnessed.

Although it could be argued that there would be times when the rub of the green goes the other way and things would even out eventually, such a system is inherently unstable and to an extent unfair. What is the point of being at the receiving end of dozens of shockers against Australia and having them in your favour when you are playing Bangladesh? What about mistakes in a World Cup final? How does that even out?

If cricket is to emerge as a major international sport, the balance has to be achieved through right decisions all the time. There is no other major sport which tolerates human error from the officials to the degree that cricket does.

The obvious solution is to use all the fascinating technology which television offers to its viewers. The question is how?

ICC is proposing a system of challenges similar to that in use in tennis. Each team is allowed to make a specified number of incorrect challenges to the umpire's decision per innings.While this would definitely increase the proportion of correct decisions, there are a few loopholes. What happens, for instance, when you exhaust all your appeals with the bulk of the innings left?

I think the solution lies in making batsmen more accountable for walking when they know they are out. If a batsman does not walk, ban him for the next match. In return, give the batsman an unconditional right to challenge the umpire's decision.

If a batsman knows that he can't be given out wrongly his inclination to stay put when he gets a decision in his favour would be automatically reduced. Moreover, if he faces a potential ban for standing his ground it is extremely unlikely that he will do so. If it is just a fine, no matter how substantial, there may be ocassions where the batsman might be willing to take on the fine and win the match.

Operationally, its the match referee and the third umpire who could be responsible for monitoring the batsmen. Given that their existing workloads are failry light, that should not be an issue.