By Girish Menon
Only the other day at the Bedford cricket festival, Om, our
fifteen year old cricket playing son, asked me for advice on what he should do
if he nicked the ball and the umpire failed to detect it. Apparently, another
player whose father had told him to walk had failed to do so and was afraid of
the consequences if his father became aware of this code violation. At the time
I told Om that it was his decision and I did
not have any clear position in this matter. Hence this piece aims to provide Om with the various nuances involved in this matter. Unfortunately
it may not act as a commandment, 'Thou shall always walk', but it may enable
him to appreciate the diverse viewpoints on this matter.
In some quarters, particularly English, the act of playing
cricket, like doing ethical business, has connotations with a moral code of
behaviour. Every time a batsman, the most recent being Broad, fails to walk the
moralists create a crescendo of condemnation and ridicule. In my opinion this
morality is as fake as Niall Ferguson's claims on 'benevolent and enlightened
imperialism'. Historically, the game of cricket has been played by scoundrels
and saints alike and cheating at cricket has been rife since the time of the
first batting superstar W G Grace.
-----------
Also Read
Also Read
Cricket and DRS - The Best is not the Enemy of the Good
Sreesanth - Another modern day Valmiki?
-----------
Another theory suggests that the moral code for cricket was
invented after World War II by English amateurs to differentiate them from the
professionals who played the game for a living. This period also featured different
dressing rooms for amateurs and professionals, there may also have been a third
dressing room for coloured players. One could therefore surmise that 'walking'
was a code of behaviour for white upper class amateurs who played the game for
pleasure and did not have to bother about their livelihood.
This then raises the question should a professional
cricketer walk?
Honore de Balzac once wrote, 'Behind every great fortune
there is a crime'. Though I am not familiar of the context in which Balzac
penned these words, I assume that he may have referred to the great wealth
accumulated by the businessmen of his times. As a student and a teacher of
economics I am of the conviction that at some stage in their evolution even the
most ethical of businesses and governments may have done things that was not
considered 'cricket'. The British during the empire building period was not
ethical nor have been the Ambanis or Richard Branson.
So if I am the professional batsman, with no other tradable
skill in a market economy with no welfare protection, travelling in a last
chance saloon provided by a whimsical selection committee what would I do? I
would definitely not walk, I'd think it was a divine intervention and try to
play a career saving knock.
As you will see I am a sceptic whenever any government or
business claims that it is always ethical just as much as the claims of walking
by a Gilchrist or a Cowdrey.
I am more sympathetic to the Australian position that it is
the umpire's job to decide if a batsman is out. Since dissent against umpiring
decisions is not tolerated and there is no DRS at the lower echelons of cricket
it does not make sense to walk at all. As for the old chestnut, 'It evens out
in the end', trotted out by wizened
greats of the game I'd like to counter with an ancient Roman story about
drowned worshippers narrated by NN Taleb in his book The Black Swan.
One Diagoras, a non
believer in the gods, was shown painted tablets bearing the portraits of some
worshippers who prayed, then survived a subsequent ship wreck. The implication
was that praying protects you from drowning. Diagoras asked, 'Where were the
pictures of those who prayed, then drowned?"
In a similar vein I wish to ask, 'Where are the batters who
walked and found themselves out of the team?' The problem with the quote, 'It
evens out in the end' is that it is used only by batters who survived. The
views of those batters with good skills but who were not blessed with good
fortune is ignored by this 'half-truth'.
So, Om , to help you make up
your mind I think Kipling's IF says it best:
If you can trust
yourself when all men doubt you
If you can meet with
Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two
impostors just the same
If you can make one
heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one
turn of pitch and toss
And lose, and start
again at your beginnings
Then, you may WALK, my
son! WALK!
There is another advantage, if you can create in the public
eye an 'image' of an honest and upright cricketer. Unlike ordinary mortals, you will find it
easier, in your post cricket life, to garner support as a politician or as an entrepreneur. The gullible public, who make decisions based on media created images, will cling to your past image as an honest cricketer and will back
you with their votes and money. Then what you do with it is really up to you. Just
watch Imran Khan and his crusade for religion and morality!
The writer plays for CamKerala CC in the Cambs league.
The writer plays for CamKerala CC in the Cambs league.