All said and done, irrespective of the situation obtaining in the middle, if the batsman knows for certain that he has knicked the ball and correctly collected by the player or wicket keeper,he must walk off signalling the umpire to declare him out. It is a gentlemen's game.Umpires are human and bound to err on the wrong side. sometimes. Of the Test playing countries, Australia indulge in sledging most.

In the case of LBW, Umpirre's decision is final and the player concerned is not expected to make any sign to say that his bat touched the ball first. I dont like the idea of referring LBW decisions to the III umpire for a final decision.Only the wicket keeper and the bowler are the right players to appeal for an LBW decision and not players in slips and gully or leg slip.

I agree, however one of the endearing traits of cricket is its pseudo-sportsmanship. Walking is pretty much non-existent, yet it is still discussed and revered as a significant part of the game. The current situation where no one actually walks but there is an atmosphere of honesty is quite a sustainable and pleasant one; the main flaw is probably that a few overzealous administrators and journalists aren't entirely cognizant of the real situation.*

As it stands, sportsmanship is not really part of the game - but the idea of it brings in the crowds, so why change?

* Forgive the arrogance. It might well be the case that the drama is profitable, in which case I encourage them to carry on!

Forget sentimentality. If you touched the ball and the catch was taken - you are out. The law says so. The umpire is there to make a decision - yes. If he makes a mistake and the batsman stays around to benefit from it - he is nothing but a cheat. If a batsman can live with that so be it.

Or alternatively, punish players SEVERLY for not walking, why not? If you edge it and try to make like you didnt, the referee at the end of the days play should hold a "hearing" and dock 100% of the match fee. That will soon put the players right! Why should everyone adopt a shiftier approach, which what is suggested here? Everyone should walk, and if they dont, they should be made to. Once it starts hurting them in the pocket players will soon start walking. Quite a simple solution really.

Players get a ton of bad decisions from Umpire, why should they walk after getting a few bad ones.

All that matters is winning and sportsmanship is a luxury few can afford.

These things tend to even out over a long enough time.

Be fair to Sehwag. It was clear from his behaviour that he did not believe having nicked that one. Next time he nicked the ball behind he walked without looking at the umpire. It is the hypocrisy of Ponting to have defended Symonds and to suggest Sehwag to walk.

Very interesting - on the one hand, you say that there's nothing wrong with playing in a manner "completely devoid of any sentimentality or chivalry", yet on the other hand you suggest "accept the good and bad calls with equal grace." - why exactly would one expect the same players who try to use umpriring errors to their advantage, to suddenly be very gentlemanly in their reactions to bad decisions? To believe that is just trading one sort of naivety for another.

When the batsman is caught anywhere else other than by the keeper he walks. Only when he is caught by the keeper he tries to stay at the wicket and hopes the umpire gets it wrong and sometimes by not walking he is influencing the umpires decision. That's cheating.

I agree with the author. As I have mentioned in previous posts, nobody walks. But still everybody questions other guy's spirit for not walking. The problem is some people's attempts to take moral high ground. Ponting's plea to take fielder's word on catches is a case in point. I mean dude how can anybody take your word if you don't walk. Leave it to the umpire...

Regards,
Abhijeet

When cricket history is read from record books, there isn't going to be any mention of how many times Adam Gilchrist walked or how many times he appealed for a definite non-nick.
But legend will survive. The story of Glen McGrath will always be tainted with a mention of his disgusting sledging on the field (and his inability to handle being at the receiving end).
there will be those who will come out in flying colours in the Wisden record books. There will be those who will never make it. And in the end that is what will separate the Glen McGraths from the Raman Lambas. The former will have the world cup wins. The latter will have the comfort of knowing that they have never been hated by anyone for anything they did on the field.
Neither approach is greater or better in the final analysis. Every player decides which is more important for him/her. The mercenary will tell you, it isnt his job. The saint will not wait for another's judgement. Every player defines his price. What's yours?

Just one word:

REVIEWS

Sachin Tendulkar doesn't walk i have seen him many times not walk would you call him a cheat? no you wouldn't.

Adam Glichrist is a hypocrite. I prefer Symonds, at least he's not pretending to be a good sport. If you think Gilchrist's "not sure", have a look at the 1996 Sharjah match where Tendulkar scored a hundred- Kaspprowicz bowled a delivery that was a blatant wide, Gilchrist APPEALED, and the Pakistani umpire gave him out. Only the whole world knew it was not out, so don't tell me Adam didn't know it. I also don't like the way you quibble all the time and try to defend the Aussies.

"Let’s just agree to leave all decisions to the umpires and accept the good and bad calls with equal grace. On that basis, things should even themselves out in the long run and we can hopefully avoid the hypocrisy and bad blood that usually occurs when different players (and different countries) get reputations for doing one or the other."
Once again Michael you are the voice of reason in a sea of confusion and mis-directed emotion! This is the way it has always been (before replays, super slow mo, hawkeye etc. etc.)and anyone who thinks otherwise are looking extremly rose coloured glasses or have never actually PLAYED the game. Umpires and their decisions should be repected, plain and simple. As for reveiws, they take too much time, undermine the umpire's authority and are only there to satisfy newspapers and the terminally hard done by.
Keep up the great writing and I look forward to your next post.

You could also write about how the Aussies have made a science of cheating. I think that's worth ablog instead of your usual provocative stuff. Glenn Mcgrath used to stand in his teapot stance after bowling, making the batsman run around him, then turn back and stand in his way, making the batsman run around him AGAIN during the second run. The Aussie bowlers got away with this because they bully the umpires. I would have myself brought it first to the attention of the umpires and then used a helmet with spikes and try to run into the bowler, if he came in my way. They also deliberately try to throw the ball at the batsman while fielding, even when he's not attempting to run. This is apart from the constant abuse, which they term mental disintegration. Funnily enough, they whinge when guys like Gambhir give it back to them. Why don't you write a frank blog about that?

I think Steve Waugh gave the ideal answer to this quandry. You dont dob yourself in if you have been speeding in your car. Similarly you dont dob yourself in if you nicked the ball. Case closed!

If a fielder really thinks the batsman tipped it and he is not moving then it should be referred to a third umpire and if he is out they can show the little duck walking back to the dressing room in utter shame. A few of those and I can assure you the batsmen will walk.

India have a worse record than anyone in world cricket when it come to bad behaviour.
Anyway I don't think anyone should walk, that's what the umpire is paid for. It is a bit unfortunate for Australia that they can never have the best umpire in the world in their games, he is Australian.

I have read that in baseball, players obey the law and don't compel the ump/ref to give them out. Don't know how far this is true, but why can't cricketers do likewise, be it Ponting, be it Sachin. What's so competitive about not walking - it's a sign of weakness that you want to get a personal achievement or get the team to a better position even when you are already beaten fair and square by the bowler. Same goes for bump balls.

If a batsman walk thinking he was caught close to the wicket and the catch was not clean, he could be run out. Let the umpire give him out.

The whole issue of walking, I believe, lies at the very heart of cricket. For all its astounding craftsmanship, cricket is fundamentally a game of human endeavour and thus open to mistakes. All those involved must seek to minimize the effect of those mistakes.

If a batsman knows he nicked it he should walk. If a batsman is not out and the umpire gives him out, he should, likewise, walk. The umpire must be presumed to act impartially, his mistake should accepted with the knowledge he is acting impartially. Batsman who nick the ball know they are out, and by not walking they are deliberately acting with deception.

This blog is just one more forum for the racism of "Asian" cricket supporters to be displayed. Perhaps it's mere resentment and petty jealousy from non achievers toward those who have. You should be embarassed to have these comments on your blog unchallenged, particularly as you have chosen to take advantage of what Australia has to offer and live and work here. Your inaction can only be interpreted as endorsement and only common courtesy prevents me from making the personally disparaging comments so many of your respondents deserve.

I must commend Michael Jeh for his courage under fire. To be criticized by both Indians and Australians every time you post an article must be unnerving, to say the least, but now you know which countries in cricket excite the most passion. If you think this is bad, wait for the India/Pakistan series in January, the Pakistan team might be weak, but that never stopped us before, Kamran and Razzaq batting out the whole day being one example. I think Kumble's days are numbered and India would be well served with new spinners to complement the very gutsy Harbhajan Singh. You could see by this test how much India missed him. If Australians don't like the 'racism' on this site, might I suggest a long walk off a short pier. We don't care if we offend the sensibilities of Australians, we have been offended by you quite enough, thank you very much.
We can go all the way back to Gavaskar and Miandad, and fairdinkum is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Give it a rest Mohit. The Indians have the worst disciplinary record of any team over the past few years with the amount players that have been fined or suspended for poor behaviour. As for Gilchrist, there is a huge difference between walking for a ball that you KNOW you have hit, and appealing for a decision where you THINK that the batsman is out. The batsman is usually in the best position to know if he has hit the ball, the fielders might have an idea but will not have the advantage of holding the bat to feel the edge - hence the concept of an APPEAL. India, Pakistan, Australia et al have been appealing over the odds for years. In fact I recall a match referee penalising some Indian players for overzealous appealing in 2001. Just as in 2008 (and Gavaskar in 80/1) India spat the dummy in that case and wouldn't play ball. I wonder if they will do the same this time if Gambhir's appeal is not upheld. Yes, India certainly have some track record.

rext- why would you think that the people on this blog actually work and live in Australia. This is a cricket blog which means anyone in any part of the world may read and answer. I am not quite sure how you can call the "Asian" cricket supporters racist when you in one paragraph are bordering on racism. I am also not sure why you come of with the resentment and petty jealousy considering the first test was drawn the second test India won and the 3rd test looks like it will be drawn also, so I am not so sure who is jealous of who at this stage.

Isn't this another beat up? If Ponting had come out and said to the press that he questioned Sehwag's integrity, it would be hypocritical. But actually the comment was made on the field, we don't know exactly what was said, and it sounds like it was simply another sledge meant to make Sehwag dwell on his near miss, possibly also sarcastically referring to double-standards on the Indians' part. Normal childish arguments that shouldn't be analysed too seriously.

But of course we shouldn't expect walking these days. When I played as a kid in the backyard without the umpire, the fielders would appeal for anything, and to some extent it was up to the batsman to be honest and admit when he was out. I sometimes wonder whether Gilchrists' seemingly conflicting approach comese from those days.

Mohit, your logic is flawed, biased, and hypocritical.

Michael has made a legitimate point and you have brought race into it.

People who believe players should walk sadly live in a dream world. No one who plays cricket at an international level is a saint. And if they get the opportunity to keep their innings alive, they take it.

You can argue against or for Gilly's logic to your heart's content, but he made an effort to try to walk when he thought he was out. Only Brian Lara made a real career out of doing it.

It is the umpire's duty to judge if a batsman actually nicked the ball or not. It might be a difficult job, but ultimately he has to make the decision. Why should the batsman make the job easy for the umpire?
Not walking after nicking has been prevalent since a long long time. Its just that it has become so much more of a big deal nowadays. If the Indians were so indignant of Symonds standing his ground after nicking, Ponting surely has the right to be indignant as well. This forms a never ending cycle. Instead, the situation calls for one team or captain to be magnanimous and accept the opponent not walking. Like it was during the 80s. No need to make such a big hue and cry of it. Perhaps this will restore some sanity to the farce that is taking place nowadays. I guess this is where the Indians need to learn a lesson. They need to stop acting hot headed and stubborn, in the knowledge that they have their financially strong board to bail them out whenever necessary.

continuing from where I left off.
Be magnanimous India. Set an example for other countries to follow suit. Dont think that every umpiring error or match referee's judgement that goes against you is designed to put you down. Take it sportingly and show what you can do on the cricket field, not off it. That way, Indian cricket will be respected and admired. Its board will be admired, not for its wealth, but for the way it runs the cricket.

I posted a comment couple of days ago rebuking rext's outrageous and out-of-context comments and they have not been posted to this blog yet. Mike, its up to you to censor user comments, but, I believe that, every blogger, has an obligation to let rebuttal posts appear, if the rebuttal is instigated by a post that doesn't pass the common-sense test (as evidenced by Aussie Din ks response to rext). Its your blog, I am just a reader, but if you think rext's comments are appropriate and mine is not, then you have lost yourself a reader.

Most Australian players don't walk because that's the way they progress through the various grades to reach first-class level. It is quite common for young batsman who chose to walk being firmly advised by his captain that he is not acting in the best interests of the team and the player himself.

This non-walking "tradition" has a long history. For instance, in his autobigraphy CG Macartney stated that Victor Trumper advised him not to walk during a Sydney Grade match circa 1907. It was sound advice considering that the umpiring varied in standard and that there were so few matches in those days that ambitious players had to make the most of their limited opportunities for advancement to Test cricket.

Now that the technology is here to get fairewr decisions during televised matches then it is silly to not use it.

Hi Digitaleye. Mate, I'm sorry your comments did not get posted. It has nothing to do with me whatsoever. The comments get sent to the moderator of this site and I don't even get to see them until they appear on this site. I'm used to copping hate mail, brickbats and bouquets from people but I can promise you that I have no say whatsoever in deciding which comments get posted. Once again, apologies.

HELLO MR.ANONYMOUS!!!
How can you call Sachin a non-walker??? I will take you back to the Coco-Cola trophy back in 1998/99 where India lost in the last league match to Australia by 12 runs.. Sachin hit a magnificient century and walked even though the umpire gave him not out! And India lost the match! Now you call Sachin a cheat? Sachin is one of the few players who uphold the integrity of the game.