Cricket was called the gentleman’s game for many reasons since its inception. And for good reason too. One of the basics is in the decision process where upon it was left up to the umpire to give a batsman out whether it be caught at the wicket, which was always a tough call as some of the edges can be razor thin and the end result was entirely left to the umpire’s judgement, or, to a lesser extent, when struck on the pad, it is completely his call to decide if the batsman is out or not.
At present, when a decision is given, if either party, be it the batsman or the fielding captain, is dissatisfied with said decision, they may ask for a review, where there’s a TV umpire who, with assistance from the camera, decides on whether the batsman is out or not, plus, if the delivery was fair, it being a no-ball or wide or whatever.
Due to the technicalities of the game and the close calls of dismissal, umpires can find it very challenging at times to make a fair call, or a call to judgement, as it is only the close ones that are disputed. I recall my friend, Deryck Murray, who played a big hand in me being offered a professional playing contract with Glamorgan County Cricket Club, telling me before I joined, that in first-class cricket in England, the greater number of batsmen would ‘walk’ if they edged a ball and was caught behind the wicket; they never waited for the umpire’s decision.
However, that did not happen only in county cricket, but in most countries. Depending on the cricketer it was always admired. I recall top-rated cricketers like Sir Garfield Sobers, Rohan Kanhai and Conrad Hunte, never waiting for the umpire to send them out, once they knew it was out.
They always left the crease and a number of others who played in that era would do the same, once they knew it was out. That’s the way it was then. Yet sometimes, it went against one’s team as happened in Australia when Sobers took a fair catch to win the fourth Test at Adelaide in the 1960/61 tour and not out was the verdict. The game was drawn.
[caption id="attachment_1150842" align="alignnone" width="1024"] -[/caption]
And there are those who would always stand their ground, as most Aussies do. For, in their philosophy, that’s the umpire’s job. Although, if that was tried against English umpires, they would show no mercy on that batsman in close calls.
A player’s philosophy would be, 'Sometimes I have bad decisions made against me, so I take my chances with the umpire and I am directed by his ruling whether right or wrong.' Yet, the honest ones went along with their conscience and felt all the better for it.
It begs the question if, not being given out when he knows he is, how can a batsman feel comfortable when he makes a big score like a hundred, or wins a game because of that bad decision, does he think that he’s deserving of the accolades that go with the 'achievement'?
When I first played first-class cricket in England in the late 1960’s, there were bowlers, sometimes assisted by some of their teammates, lifting the seam of the ba
