Time was when, it is said, cricket was a gentleman’s game. Then, many batsmen “walked”: if they knew they were out, they did not wait for the umpire’s decision but walked to the pavilion. The classic example of this was the English batsman, Jack Hobbs, who, on one occasion, turned around to ask the Australian wicketkeeper, Bert Oldfield, known for not making unfair appeals, what the appeal was about. When Oldfield replied “I think you are out, sir”, Hobbs said “Then I better go”. But not all batsmen, even in the halcyon days of cricket, followed the high ethical standards of Hobbs. The most notable exception was none other than the great Don Bradman, who never walked. He argued that the umpire was the right person to decide if a batsman was out or not. He always accepted the umpire’s decision with a smile. He added that errors made by umpires cancelled themselves out in the course of a cricketer’s career. Walking has always been a contentious issue in cricket. It has suddenly resurfaced with the admission of Murali Kartik that he had actually snicked a catch and the umpire had not given him out. He carried on to play an innings that proved to be the turning point of the match.

It is extremely difficult — if not impossible — to take an ethical stand on the question of walking. Answers will vary according to how cricket is viewed. The handful — often scorned as fuddy-duddies — who view cricket as something more than a game, as a way of life, will always argue that walking, since it is synonymous with honesty, should be an integral part of cricket. A major dent in this view is made by the example of Bradman, who played the game according to the highest possible standards. Against the old-fashioned idea is the more modern and professional one, which believes in the maximization of a given competitive situation. Upholders of this view would say that if batsmen are expected to walk, then bowlers should be expected not to make obviously unfair appeals and fielders should always acknowledge it when they take a catch that is not fairly held. Walking cannot be considered on its own. None of these conditions is fulfilled in modern cricket and it would be silly to expect them to be fulfilled. There are good reasons to doubt, pace the idealized view of the game, if cricket was ever played under such conditions.

Mr Kartik, probably because he is still young, has made one mistake. He admitted that he had nicked one that escaped the eyes of the umpire. Other players in a similar situation would have kept quiet. It would be disingenuous to adopt a righteous and moral tone against Mr Kartik. He did what almost all cricketers do today. There is one point that needs to be underlined in the context of this particular incident. Batsmen are entitled not to walk, but they should always accept the umpire’s decision, even when it goes against them. Favourable and unfavourable decisions should be treated at par. That will be true to the spirit of cricket or of any other sport.