If Don Bradman could get away with it, so could others if they stood their ground. Or, as England's great opening batsman, Sir Jack Hobbs, infers in the biography by John Arlott, "Walking is a matter of principle and ethics. In the end it evens out."
Does this mean if you know you have touched the ball you walk? Or stay put and let the umpire decide for you, as did Bradman. Sachin Tendulkar did the honest thing and walked against the West Indies. In an earlier World Cup, an even more hotly debated incident occurred when Adam Gilchrist walked in the 2003 semi-final involving Sri Lanka at Port Elizabeth's St George's Park.
Disgruntled critics in Sri Lanka of the Gilchrist decision, still grumble about his reasons. It is so often pointed out how the only time an Australian walks is when his car has run out of fuel. Just why you get Sri Lankans acting with cynicism over the Gilchrist episode is they believe, how over the years, so many more should have done so.
Does this mean there is a belief that only Sri Lankans "walk" when they touched the ball? Or, for that matter any top international player?
In the 1950s, the English county circuit it was claimed was a place where batsmen "walked" if they knew they were out. Well that is the rumour, for as a former player turned umpire Bill Alley once admitted, it was all a fancy story of make-believe. Some players were known to be walkers, others who were not.
There were also players who walked when it suited them and a former Test batsman and International Cricket Council president was among them. If his team was in trouble, forget it. It was all about playing mind games with the opposition.
From the time The Don (Bradman) left it to the umpire to decide and declined to walk in the famous Jack Ikin "catch" incident at Brisbane's Woollongabba, in the first post World War 2 Ashes series, the question of "walking" has been as hotly debated as is the UDRS malaise in this year's World Cup where the lack of technology has been the cause of much valid criticism.
In that first Ashes Test, Bradman, having won the toss was batting sooner than he had expected. He was struggling against Alec Bedser's bowling tactics and had "scratched together" (say contemporary newspaper reports), an innings of 28. With the loss of two wickets, Bedser causing problems and left-arm seamer Bill Voce bowling, Bradman's wicket would have given England the edge.
Voce had been the ideal foil for Harold Larwood's fast bowling during the (in)famous Bodyline series of 1932/33. Although not as fast as he had been 13 years earlier, Voce was still a handful and an edgy innings by Bradman was in danger of swift execution.
Voce bowled a near yorker length delivery; Bradman attempted to chop down on the ball and through the slips, instead the ball flew to Ikin, at second slip, taking the ball at chest height. There was some disbelief ("Astonished," were Len Hutton's words), as Bradman looked at the square leg boundary instead of behind. A multitude of questions arose.
One was a matter of, had the ball touched the ground when he chopped down on the ball. The second was if the ball had hit the edge higher on the bat, would it have hit the ground yet fly chest height to Ikin. After a brief consultation and a belated appeal, a fuming England captain, Walter Hammond, let Bradman know what he thought.
Former Test players turned writers, Bill O'Reilly and Jack Fingleton, were on the side of the Englishmen. To them, Bradman was out. Even Keith Miller, next in, had grabbed his gloves and bat and ready to replace Bradman while the England vice-captain, Norman Yardley, in the gully position and saw the incident clearly enough, was of the same opinion as O'Reilly and Fingleton.
When the umpire said "not out", there was some disbelief in the England camp and for the rest of the series the decision rankled. Had Bradman been dismissed, it is suggested it would have hastened his retirement. This was never denied; then again, it has not been suggested he would not. He wanted to enjoy that last (1948) tour of England and the knighthood.
Just how much Bradman's decision influenced others (Australians it is claimed), to adopt a similar approach in such positions is a matter of questioning the ethics of the players involved. It is also, whether the side is in trouble or not.
In the Gilchrist incident, his decision took many by surprise. He had scored 22 off 20 balls and the innings total was 34 in the sixth over when the ball hit the bottom edge of the bat from Aravinda de Silva's delivery for Kumar Sangakkara to take the catch and appeal. There was much surprise among Australian writers in the press box when he walked. This is what I wrote of the incident for the Indian Express at the time.
"Twenty-five minutes into the first semi-final, however, Gilchrist goes on the sweep to a looping delivery from Aravinda de Silva, gets a faint edge which the opposing wicketkeeper Kumar Sangakkara claims a catch. Umpire Rudi Koertzen turns down the decision with a shake of the head, only Gilchrist decides to take off, giving himself out with 22 runs next to his name.
"There are any number of batsmen who would have in similar circumstances stood their ground and accepted the umpires' decision. It is a natural reaction. Not in this case: Gilchrist did what he felt was the honourable thing, walking without looking at the umpire. Whether there are those in Sri Lanka, who would appreciate this magnanimous gesture is another matter.
"What it did do was restore some semblance of dignity to a game often bereft of such rich moments of self-denial and which is often lost on those armchair critics whose team benefit from such a decision. They will ignore the positive and revel in the negative."
The same could be said of Tendulkar's decision to walk when edging the Ravi Rampaul delivery, with two next to his name.
Only one question need be asked: did Tendulkar and Gilchrist feel confident enough there was solid enough batting backup to make the decision to walk safe? As was the case with Gilchrist, Tendulkar's supporters will suggest he is "always a walker" without previous examples.
There is also the case of Mahela Jayawardene, Sri Lanka's classic batsman. This was the game against New Zealand in Mumbai. The catch New Zealand claim was in dispute; the TV evidence inconclusive. Had he been confident of his middle order, he might have followed Tendulkar. The Sri Lanka middle is marshmallow soft; hence, his decision to leave it to impaired television replays for the umpire to make a dodgy judgement.