Why call a fielder a cheat?

It is accepted that not walking is not cheating. Fair enough, but why call a fielder a cheat when he takes a bumped catch? The premise is two-fold: the umpires have done in the batsman on occasions when they had not edged and so he is entitled to wait for the umpire’s call. Secondly, the batsman thinks the umpire is in best position to judge when he has edged or not but is often obscured in the fielding exchange and the moral onus lies on the fielder to own up whether it bumped or not.



Right, but what is going in the batsman’s mind when he actually waits: Oops I hope he has not seen or heard the edge; let me not try to look sheepish; is my face passive enough or, am I fidgeting or acting nervous; ooh these bloody fielders are going on with the appeal; hope he doesn’t relent. Phew. That was close. Lucky escape.



Now cut to the situation where the fielder has taken a ‘catch’. In most situations, he is not sure whether it had bumped. Let’s take the Dhoni catch off Pietersen at The Oval in the recent India-England series. Apparently, he thought that the ball dropped on his fingers and rolled up. Michael Clarke, here, must have felt the same.



Now take this catch by Steve Waugh. Did Waugh believe the ball bounded off to his elbow and he picked it up from there?



And lets assume, for argument sake, those situations where the fielder has appealed knowing fully well it had bumped. Now what’s the thought process: Hope he didn’t see the ball had hit the turf; hope my appeal is convincing enough; great these boys are also appealing; yippee… he has given it. Lucky day.



Now is there any difference between this and that of the batsman? The premise of umpiring giving batsmen wrongly holds here also. Many a time, the umpire has not given the batsman out, even after he had edged it. Secondly, as we have seen through the history of cricket, the umpire, even in the so-believed correct position, does make quite a few mistakes that allow the batsmen to get away. In fact the number of times when the batsmen has denied a wicket by ‘cheating’ is easily more than a fielder claiming a false catch. But the batsman is not expected to clear that mistake but the fielder is put on a moral dock. Is it fair?



As Ravi Shastri, the former India batsman, put it bluntly, “The option of players using their conscience to help the umpires is unrealistic. It’s not a case of somebody sitting in the air conditioner summoning his conscience to come out clean. When you are in the heat of battle, with the sun blazing down and five days of your labour coming to nothing, it’s the win you want at all cost.”



The cheating accusation has percolated to gully and backyard cricket too where in many cases there would be no umpires. The batsmen get away but the fielders’ reputation is tarred.



As Martin Williamson wrote, what is it about cricket that it is the only major sport in the world where some people demand that players do the umpires' jobs for them? And more unfairly, why paint only the fielders in the wrong light when they try to capitalise on a human error?



The fielders will appeal and the batsmen will stand his ground. It is human nature at work. The man in white coat will also err with his judgement. So be it. If you want to cut down the errors, try to incorporate a referral system.



The only thing this proves is there is no point in signing up deals to take a fielder’s words as Ponting and Kumble did before the series. It’s a great sentiment but it will be failed by human nature, time and again.



The only jarring point is if and when, post that deal, Ponting appeals knowing well that it had bumped, then and, only then, it smacks off bad taste. And only because they signed a deal saying catches would be decided on fielder’s words. Then you have taken the umpire out of the equation and want to play judge and open yourself for moral persecution. It is not suggested that Ponting did that in Sydney but just assuming a hypothetical situation. But in all fairness, many a time, the fielder is not sure whether it has bumped. Ponting must have felt the he was in control and the catch was deemed completed, and hence legal, before he hit the ground. The deal is error-ridden and cannot stand the pressures of real life.



But the point remains, even if a fielder knows that it had bumped, there is no way you can call him a cheat. Unless you call the batsman, who doesn’t walk, a cheat too. The mirror has to be the same. It’s not quite cricket is a great philosophy but it asks too much of a person. Cricket is just another game. Let’s not demand that players do the umpires' jobs for them. Yes it would be very nice, if they do help out but when they don’t, let’s not malign them. Just take a deep breath, hit a pub and get on with life. It’s just cricket.