|
comic book, director, jayz, cartoon pictures, bomb shelter, wmd budget, diet / health / fitness, northface, chicago entertainment, hardware personal computers - general, politics/international relations, exhibition, illusions, natasha richardson, cd, hard to find book, food, nevada test site,
|
But what would I know? I'm just a cricket writer. Walking, Mankading and the Mahabharata Hifzur Meerapatel and Alex Holman both wrote in to say that while they applaud a cricketer who walks when he knows he is out, they do cowboy suit not condemn one who knows he is out but waits for the umpire's decision. There is no contradiction in this. When he walks, the batsman is following a cowboy suit general moral rule about honesty; when he stays, he is following the laws of cricket, which leave that decision to the umpire. So, much as we may praise Adam cowboy suit Gilchrist for walking in that World Cup semi-final, it is perfectly natural, also, to not raise an eyebrow when one of his team-mates does not walk despite an obvious snick. That is the way the game has been designed. Sriram Gopalakrishnan writes in disputing the assertion that a batsman who does not walk despite knowing he is out and a fielder who appeals knowing the batsman is not out are equally culpable. Sriram points out: "All players are expected to uphold `The Spirit of Cricket', which specifically says it is considered cheating to appeal knowing that the batsman is not out (Section 5), while there is no specific mention of expecting a batsman to walk if he knows
|
