> If you’re playing tennis without an umpire or linesman, are players morally obliged to make honest calls?

It ruins the game if you don't, so 95% of tennis players try to be honest.

To return to cricket: in low-league games the umpires often are members of the batting side. Is it just my imagination, or do they really tend to do in their own teammates, especially if they themselves were out for a duck?

Nice article, especially the way you ended it!!

My take on this(its not as if it matters): it is hypocrisy if you Walk-When-You-Edge, but Appeal-for-Bumpball. So, what is needed is just this: players play to SURVIVE and WIN. And leave the decision-making to the decision-makers (umpires). The whole confusion arises because people have confused the term 'OUT'. An OUT becomes an OUT only if the umpire deems it OUT, not just because the fielder caught the ball or the ball brushed the bat. This simple definition will eliminate all "morality" and "hypocrisy" issues.

Isn't the strange duality (bump catch=poor form, not-walking=OK, appealing for LBW from short leg=OK) more to do with reaction time than culture? When the ball passes the bat it usually does it very quickly, and it is genuinely possible to be unsure whether you nicked it, and even to be unsure whether a tremor from the bat was due to nicking the ball or your boot. And it is rarely the case that you see the ball hit your own edge. Contrariwise, even though slip catches come fast, the action has slowed down quite a lot by the time the ball ends up in the hand; you can usually tell whether it bounced; there is a sort of perceptual disconnect. So, compared with the batsman who may be unsure whether to walk, it is quite rare for a fielder to be in genuine doubt. That is why it is quite surprising when a Ponting claims a catch where everyone saw the bounce, and unsurprising that he is himself so morally outraged(because it felt like a clean catch, dammit). Graeme Smith should have walked.

Awesome article man... Nicking the ball and waiting for the umpire is cheating, plain and simple... Why exactly does a batsman walk after he is bowled or caught in the outfield... It is too evident and there is no scope for cheating... The rules suggest that if the fielder catches the ball on the full from the bat, you are OUT and if you do not follow that, you are chaeting... How I wish ICC has a hard rule for these non-walkers...

There's too much money in it now. It's all well and good to say that it's a gentlemen's sport, but if your next paycheck is compromised by an incorrect decision, it puts things in a rather different light.

If I was one poor score away from being dropped, and I nicked it, there's no way you could pry me away from the crease without the umpire's assent. My very livelihood could depend on it.

IMO claiming a bump or bounced catch is wrong cos, until the cameras started covering every single aspect of a game, you can only rely on the fielder. Nicking and not walking or inside-edge LBW puts the onus on umpire, who might make a mistake anyway by giving one out which wasn't, so that is fair game and evens out in the end. But an umpire has no way to judge whether most catches were taken cleanly (esp in park/grade cricket) , so to take advantage of that fact is really low. That is the justification why one is acceptable and one not. And again sledging is just testing the batter's frame of mind and concentration, just that it should be kept non-personal, and in park cricket it usually is.

The many examples of rather sneaky cheating in soccer is one of the causes of its lack of acceptance in Australia, despite similar instances of sneakiness in cricket. Sneakiness goes against stereotypical national character. What is acceptable though is a 'blue'.This is perceived as manly. You ask if there are any special rules in football that demand honour.I have seen several instances of footballers deliberately kicking the ball into touch after a restart following an injury to an opponent, thus conceding possession.
This seems honourable. The amateurs of Corinthian days would forgo their right to have a goalkeeper when they conceded a penalty. They believed their opponents deserved to score in that situation. Did they take honour too far?
The meaning of sport is changing for the worst. There are exceptions however. Against South Africa Adam Gilchrist snicked and walked. Mark Boucher called him back saying the catch had not been clean.

What a fine piece, Michael. There is no correct answer, of course, but at least we still grapple with such subjects, and in cricket more than any other sport (to my almost certain knowledge). The time to worry is when inconsistency yields to apathy.

I think part of the problem lies in the appeal process. LBWs and Caught Behinds are just so heavily influenced by a convincing performance by bowlers, catchers and near fielders. Umpires, players, fans and commentators have all come to accept this. So if the appeal is half-hearted or non-existant, chances are the umpire will think twice even if he was certain he heard or saw a nick. Sometimes it feels like players are rewarded for the appeal more than the actual piece of cricket. So they appeal for everything and hope that a few stick. Bump catches are less influenced by this appeal tradition, so they seem to be safe for now. I don’t like this (ditto for rugby try appeals) but what can you do?

The morality sits squarely on decisions that could go either way. Many a batsman has been given out when they hadn't edged the ball so when they do edge it they wait for the umpires decision. Same with LBWs many are given out when the batman has hit it first so when they don't they don't walk, again the fielding side would have plumb LBWs turned down by the official so when they do get one that the batsman has hit they see it as a form of justice. Catches are different, only the fieldsman really knows whether he caught it so if he claims it, it is considered cheating, same as tennis with no umpire, it would spoil the game if a player deliberately cheats.