• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Historical Incident- When Walking was Morally Wrong

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
In a previous thread we have discussed walking or not as a habit.

Im including this as a different thread as I find it a very different take on the situation and also falls under the category of showing that 'old' cricket was not always the gentlemans game it was made out to be.

This incident was taken from 'Its not Cricket' by Simon Rae.

The Incident
The 1964-65 England tour to South Africa was a very tense affair. Relations between the teams were not good and words were spoken by members of both teams.

Things came to a head in the Third Test.

Peter Pollock bowled a ball to Barrington. There was an appeal and the umpire, Jack Warner, quickly gave Barrington not out. Barrington then proceeded to leave the crease and walk as he believed he nicked the ball to the keeper.

Now all hell broke loose.

The Aftermath
Quotes regarding Barrington walking included-

"Ugly new low in sportsmanship"
"..an ostentatious act which bordered on gamesmanship"
"All Barrington succeeded in doing was hold the umpire up to ridicule and contempt"
"..appeared to pass a public vote of no confidence in the umpire"
"..it seems the England players are quite capable of umpiring the match themselves"

The South Africans and the press beleived that by walking, Barrington was usurping the role of the umpire and embarrassing him.

Ill end with a quote from former SA captain, Jack McGlew, who having witnessed the incident said "You must never take control of the game out of the umpires hands"

In Conclusion
Im not saying I agree with anything the South Africans said or did but nothing is cut and dry. The walking issue is not just as simple as non-walkers are cheats and walkers are saints.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Anyone suggesting that you can't undermine Umpiring by walking is, naturally, a fool.
Still doesn't change my thoughts on the matter, though - by not walking, you're cheating.
 

archie mac

International Coach
Goughy said:
In a previous thread we have discussed walking or not as a habit.

Im including this as a different thread as I find it a very different take on the situation and also falls under the category of showing that 'old' cricket was not always the gentlemans game it was made out to be.

This incident was taken from 'Its not Cricket' by Simon Rae.

The Incident
The 1964-65 England tour to South Africa was a very tense affair. Relations between the teams were not good and words were spoken by members of both teams.

Things came to a head in the Third Test.

Peter Pollock bowled a ball to Barrington. There was an appeal and the umpire, Jack Warner, quickly gave Barrington not out. Barrington then proceeded to leave the crease and walk as he believed he nicked the ball to the keeper.

Now all hell broke loose.

The Aftermath
Quotes regarding Barrington walking included-

"Ugly new low in sportsmanship"
"..an ostentatious act which bordered on gamesmanship"
"All Barrington succeeded in doing was hold the umpire up to ridicule and contempt"
"..appeared to pass a public vote of no confidence in the umpire"
"..it seems the England players are quite capable of umpiring the match themselves"

The South Africans and the press beleived that by walking, Barrington was usurping the role of the umpire and embarrassing him.

Ill end with a quote from former SA captain, Jack McGlew, who having witnessed the incident said "You must never take control of the game out of the umpires hands"

In Conclusion
Im not saying I agree with anything the South Africans said or did but nothing is cut and dry. The walking issue is not just as simple as non-walkers are cheats and walkers are saints.
When Gilly walked this is the first incident that came to mind, I thought Gilly waited until the umpire gave him not out and then walked. Why didn't he walk as soon as the appeal was made?
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
If we were in a tight position in a match, and a friend walked causing us to lose i would slap him.
 

oz_fan

International Regular
Just thought I would do a similar thing for the Gilly incident:

The Incident
2003 World Cup semi final, Australia vs Sri Lanka. Gilchrist had hit a couple of fours and sixes and was 22 from 19 balls. The spinner de Silva bowled to Gilchrist and Gilly tried to sweep him. He got an edge, it bounced up off his pad and he was caught behind. The umpire gave him not out. Gilchrist then decided to walk because he thought back to all the times when batsmen from the ashes series such as Vaughan and Hussain had not walked when they had claimed a close catch. He later said that a voice in his head had told him, Go. Walk.
After cruising along to 37 from 7 overs. Australia lost a lot of quick wickets including Bevan who was given out when he shouldn't have been (perhaps this shows why you don't walk if your given not out because you can't stay if you are given out). Australia were 212 - 7 at the end of their innings. SL struggled in their reply and after some rain lost by the DL system.


The Aftermath
- Brought the issue of walking back into the spotlight.
- Gilly became known as a walker.
- Ponting started to ask opposing captains to take the fielding sides word if a catch was taken
 

Lillian Thomson

International Coach
This also happened in a televised John Player League 40 over match one Sunday in the 70's. Jack Birkenshaw was opening the batting for Leicestershire (the original pinch-hitter?:laugh: ) and there was an appeal for caught behind. The umpire was Ray Julien and he gave it not out. After a pause of several seconds Jack Birkenshaw walked. Ray Julien then walked over to consult with the other umpire for no other reason than he had been made to look a complete chump.:unsure:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
archie mac said:
When Gilly walked this is the first incident that came to mind, I thought Gilly waited until the umpire gave him not out and then walked. Why didn't he walk as soon as the appeal was made?
Nah, certainly didn't seem that way to me.
Seemed more like it with Kasprowicz at Chennai.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Lillian Thomson said:
This also happened in a televised John Player League 40 over match one Sunday in the 70's. Jack Birkenshaw was opening the batting for Leicestershire (the original pinch-hitter?:laugh: )
Nah, no way. Pinch-hitting dates back at least to the 1950s, when Surrey would promote Arthur MacIntyre, and later Sussex John Snow.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
GoT_SpIn said:
If we were in a tight position in a match, and a friend walked causing us to lose i would slap him.
Except that his walking wouldn't have caused you to lose, his nicking\gloving it would.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Except that his walking wouldn't have caused you to lose, his nicking\gloving it would.
But he was given not out by the umpire so he walked

People should just learn to except the umpires ruling, either if its wrong or right

One time we did call a batsmen back, because our club umpire/coach is a ****** biased person..The guy had ran half way down the wicket and got hit in the thigh
 

adharcric

International Coach
If you're cheating by not walking when you should be out, aren't you cheating by walking when you shouldn't be out (and the umpire raises his finger)?
Are you cheating cricket by not following its (questionable) rules or by not following the truth?
Clearly, it's not a black-and-white issue ... but I tend to think that you should let the umpire do his job to maintain consistency.
Morality that only points in one direction - giving yourself out - is rather sketchy, isn't it?
If you only want to play a sport of absolute morality ... cricket is not for you ... perhaps no sport is for you, because there is always doubt involved.
Unless we eliminate live umpiring and make the third-umpire the only umpire, this issue will remain.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
GoT_SpIn said:
But he was given not out by the umpire so he walked
Mostly walking is done before the decision... in any case, it was still the glove\nick that got him out, not the walking.
People should just learn to except the umpires ruling, either if its wrong or right

One time we did call a batsmen back, because our club umpire/coach is a ****** biased person..The guy had ran half way down the wicket and got hit in the thigh
Sorry... 2nd and 3rd paragraph is something of a paradox!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
adharcric said:
If you're cheating by not walking when you should be out, aren't you cheating by walking when you shouldn't be out (and the umpire raises his finger)?
Are you cheating cricket by not following its (questionable) rules or by not following the truth?
Clearly, it's not a black-and-white issue ... but I tend to think that you should let the umpire do his job to maintain consistency.
Morality that only points in one direction - giving yourself out - is rather sketchy, isn't it?
If you only want to play a sport of absolute morality ... cricket is not for you ... perhaps no sport is for you, because there is always doubt involved.
Unless we eliminate live umpiring and make the third-umpire the only umpire, this issue will remain.
Well... if we make the Third-Umpire the only Umpire he won't be the third, will he, he'll be the First...
Of course you're cheating by walking if you're not out... but you're cheating yourself, deliberately damaging your own team's prospects... and why?
Why would anyone want to walk when they know they're not out?
 

Pedro Delgado

International Debutant
Richard said:
Mostly walking is done before the decision...
Exactly. I don't even look at the umpire when I walk. It's safe to assume that I'm officially out if I'm not at the crease anymore anyway, regardless of an umpires finger.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Anyone who walks AFTER the ump has given him not out is obviously setting a bad precedent. I go back to Lara. He walks if he has nicked it and the catch is taken cleanly. End of Story. Not like Gilly who waited till he was given not out. And if he is given out when he hasn't nicked it, he shows a bit of disappointment but still walks off without too much fuss. Or one can follow the Sachin and Jonty example. They never complain too much of the decision and just walk when they are given out. Even when absolute howlers are given against them, they only show the minimum amount of dissatisfaction.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Mostly walking is done before the decision... in any case, it was still the glove\nick that got him out, not the walking.

Sorry... 2nd and 3rd paragraph is something of a paradox!!!!!!!!!!!
Often when the umpire does not give the player out he then walks. Gilly for example.



Yeah i know.

Was just giving an example of how i didn't follow my normal actions. I suppose you had to be there, but it was probably the worst decision i have ever seen in my life.
 

Top