Been thinking about the walking thing.
Walking has a place in most, non-Test cricket because, the way I see it, an umpiring **** up just doesn't feel like part of the game. It is, of course, but it doesn't sit right. You feel as though something other than batting, bowling and fielding has done something. That's what was good about Bell being recalled when he was run out against India - since it seemed like a non-cricketing ****up, the Indians thought they were right and the rules were wrong in this case by recalling him.
But when you bring DRS into the hands of the players, it becomes unarguably a part of their game. Players have to be tactical about how to use it - either aggressively, aiming to get any chance that comes their way, or defensively, aiming to let the odd chance slide to make sure they get the ones that are there for sure. If you choose the former, and then you miss out on an obvious decision down the line, the opposition is not only within his rights to punish your poor strategy, but pretty much obligated to. It's no different to having your keeper stand up to a quick when he's not good enough and then watching the byes roll down - walking in this case is like not running for those byes. It's not only unnecessary, it's a failure to punish poor cricketing strategy.
I don't like this, really, at all. I don't want use-of-DRS-skill to become part of the game alongside batting, bowling and fielding, so I don't want it to be a players' decision. And I want there to be the option to walk - just like "withdrawing the appeal", I think there's something a little bit special about how sometimes, you can say what feels right is better than the literal rules. But as long as DRS is in the players' hands, we can't have it. It just doesn't make sense.
