Fielders Cannot Be Expected To Do An Umpire's Job

It is now accepted that batsmen do not walk. Allan Lamb even tried to argue in his autobiography that this approach was more honest. He asserted that batsmen who walk, only do so to gain an honest reputation, in order to deceive the umpire by not walking on borderline decisions at crucial moments in a match. I doubt umpires have a mental list of which batsmen walk and so Lamb’s argument that somehow his opponents benefited by walking is perverse. His line of reasoning could be simplified to: “it is more honest to lie all the time than to lie occasionally.”

Unlike the batsman who refuses to walk, a fielder who appeals for a grounded catch can expect to be vilified. Clearly the batsmen want it both ways, they believe that they have every right to stand their ground when gloving the ball behind, but will be outraged if a fielder tries to claim a dubious catch.

Competitiveness clouds players’ judgement. A batsman rarely believes he was out LBW and conversely bowlers will reckon they fail to receive half the decisions they deserve. It is therefore unreasonable to argue that fielders are capable of being objective and honest, when batsmen and bowlers are anything but.

For better or for worse, we have to accept that relying on the honesty of the players is an unreliable method of decision-making. Fortunately today’s technology should also make it unnecessary.