The recent Sydney Test Match between Australia and India has proven that cricket is not necessarily a "gentlemen's" sport. The 5 day match managed to stir up a lot of controversy in a very short period. It started with some dodgy umpiring decisions and ended with allegations of racism, with Harbhajan Singh allegedly calling Australia's Andrew Symonds a "monkey", for which Singh has copped a three match ban (which India is now appealing). India then threatened to pick up their bat and ball and go home, but have since decided to continue their tour. All very complicated and confusing for what is only a game!

One of the more curious umpiring decisions given in the game was Andrew Symonds being given not out after he appeared to get a thick edge. Symonds was heavily criticised by India for not 'walking', when even by Symonds own admission, he was out. "Walking" or the act of the batsmen walking from the ground even before the umpire has given the decision (usually happens when it's obviously out), has always been a contentious issue. Personally I can see both sides of the argument.

On the one hand, why should a batsmen walk if he/she is given not out by the umpire. As a batsmen there are days when the decisions will go against you. You'll be given out even though you know you should not have been. Getting a decision to go your way just balances everything out doesn't it? The umpires are there to do a job, why should the batsman do it for them.

On the other hand, if you know you are out, isn't "walking" the only the right, and sportsman like thing to do?

Personally, I'd say I'd be a "walker", I'm not sure I could stand there knowing that I should have been given out, but then that might all change if I were a professional cricketer who had been on the receiving end of some poor decisions.

In cricket, there is no more obvious mode of dismissal than being clean bowling. When the ball hits the stumps and the bails come off, you really don't need to wait for the umpire to raise his/her finger. Which is why I'm not sure that the Indian cricket team should feel all that comfortable for criticising their opposition for not walking.

Here's a nice clip highlighted by the Brisbane Times and posted on YouTube, featuring tough talking Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh demonstrating how not to walk. His decision not to leave the ground and wait for the umpires decision seems to confuse everyone, including the commentary team, and his English opposition. The Brisbane Times describes the action:

The move befuddles commentator Ian Botham and moves Pietersen to ask Singh: "Do you not walk when you're bowled?". Harbhajan fires back with, ahem, a phrase starting with a word that rhymes with "truck" and ends with "you".

Watch the clip for yourself, it's a bit of a laugh, but supports the old saying that "those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Warning: Contains some coarse language.

#5 w h copson derbyshire Cricket sport card

US $7.74

15m

#50 d v p wright Kent Cricket sport card

US $6.15

15m