Can Ponting's Trust On Catching Be Valid When Clarke Does Not Walk When He's Out?

by Sreelata S. Yellamrazu

  Not many things are going Ricky Ponting's way at the moment. And the Australian captain may have his deputy to blame for one of them.

 It was a strange scenario. On the one hand, Michael  Clarke and Michael Hussey had built a century partnership for the fourth wicket that negated England's attempts for a breakthrough after tea on the fourth day of the second Test of the Ashes 2010 at the Adelaide Oval. Clarke himself was witnessing a revival in his batting, on eighty when Kevin Pietersen struck a deadly blow.

 Clarke appeared to momentarily walk away from the crease before holding himself back. The umpire had missed the trick and the batsman had received a reprieve that could have helped Australia immensely with the threat of  more rain looming for the fifth and final day. But wait a moment. England were confident and the Umpire Decision Review System was at play. England opted for it and Clarke was out, pure and simple.

  Clarke walked back, not just having put Australia in a desolate position but also, having dented his own integrity. Call it guilt, or talk after getting caught, Clarke wasted no time to get onto Twitter and post his apology, calling it a heat of a moment decision not to walk.

     While the decision of a batsman to walk or not has stirred up an old debate, what the Australian vice captain has done is also put Ponting on the spot light. Many failed to find connection. But here it is plain and simple. Ponting was furious over a reprieve to Alastair Cook over a catch that was befuddled by the technology. He stated that he wished more captains adhered to his policy of trusting the opposition team when they take a catch.

        But here is where Ponting stands defeated. No rule of law, the batsmen claim, can force them to walk until the umpire's finger is raised. If by that token, a batsman has a conscience strong enough to stand his ground despite knowing he has been beaten and knows that his team could well be at the receiving end some day, how can the opposition trust when a catch is cleanly taken and claimed as the Australian captain insists? Does not the trust factor go out of the window if decisions are based on selfish, some would say legitimately selfish but nonetheless selfish, interests? How does trust fit into the scheme of things, Punter?