Stuart Broad - Should he have walked, or was he right to stand his ground?....

[joeinbrighton]

If Australia hadn't wasted their referrals on rather frivolous LBW appeals then they'd have been able to refer to the third umpire and get the decision overturned. Australia used up their referrals thinking they could rip through the England middle order, but in doing so, they took a gamble and 150-200 runs later, it meant they couldn't use the system when they had legitimate cause to overturn a decision. What needs to happen is for the third umpire to have discretion to inform the umpire of when they have missed an incident that wasn't able to be reviewed.

 

[Arkwright]

There is a fine line between gamesmanship and cheating.

I can see why Broad stood his ground as that is the pro game. Just hope that it doesn't creep into grass root cricket.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Clarke not walking in 2010 meant I would have stayed. My grandad always said to me - you get given out wrongly often enough, you might as well take the luck when it comes your way.

 

[Luke93]

Trott and Root shouldn't have been out, and they should not have wasted a review. It all evens itself out, he was right to stand ground.

 

[fisons]

"Should he of walked" - now that is a question I would of answered.

 

[atfc village]

Jimmy Case never stopped v Norwich in 83 is he a cheat ? shit happens.

 

[Pevenseagull]

IF he had walked I would have wanting to read about Root and Trott giving him a bollocking.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I think he should have walked (spirit of the game etc....), but I accept my view reflects a bygone age and in reality he probably did the right thing. After all if the teams didn't constantly appeal for things that are clearly not out then the umpires job would be easier. Its just not cricket

 

[sydney]

he shouldn't have walked..Ponting and Clarke have set the standard , the umpires' word is final.

 

[Trevor]

Batsmen is very rare these days. It was very poor umpiring - there have been several bad mistakes this match and England have suffered as badly as Australia. Australia should not have wasted their reviews chancing their luck on marginal decisions - it's their own fault

 

[spig100963]

Professional cricket is different to village cricket. I think at pro level you should not walk. At village level, when it is likely not a pro umpire, you should do the right thing and walk.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

The whole idea of the review system takes the decision out of the bastman's hands. Why should he have walked. Australia had their three review options and threw them away. If he had walked its like giving them a gimme. And please dont give the 30 years ago rubbish out. As someone said before. WG Grace never walked in his life and theres no way Botham would have walked, or Richards. I doubt even if Cowdrey would have walked. Moments like this can change a series... even a whole career. By not walking Broad has done nothing wrong.

 

[Hotchilidog]

In my view cricketers "Should" walk, however given that England were on the wrong end of three bad decisions Root not out, Trott n.o (reviewed), Agar n.o (review) I can fully understand Broad not walking. That is sadly part of the game these days and it is not like the Aussies would have done any different so we are playing in the same spirit.

Both sides now have good cause to have an issue with the umpires, but if decisions had been correct all the way through we would be miles ahead in this game.

 

[Spicy]

Don't forget to answer the poll gents

Don't forget the ladies! I have answered no as if it had been the other way round their batsman wouldn't have walked.

 

[Deleted member 18477]

The 'Stralians got an extra 150 runs from the mistake the umpire made with Agar's stumping. We'll get 30 max from broad not walking. Trott may have hit a big one if procedures had have been followed and he'd still been in. HOWEVER these two observations should not have influenced Broad's superb decision to wait for the finger, he did the right thing.

This!

 

[Chesney Christ]

There is so much sanctimonious bullshit talked about walking/not walking.

The day I get called back by an opposing team after a shit decision against me.... is the day I start walking. It's not happened yet in 17 years of league cricket!

I have had many times when teams have known full well I got an inside edge and still appealed. The walking debate is just self-righteous nonsense created by bowlers.

 

[Chesney Christ]

Clarke not walking in 2010 meant I would have stayed. My grandad always said to me - you get given out wrongly often enough, you might as well take the luck when it comes your way.

100% this (what your Grandad said).

 

[Hungry Joe]

I always walked as a player, part of the beauty of the game for me. Sad to see the days of fair play are pretty much over in the pro game, and have been for some time.

 

[Taybha]

Im a walker if i think ive nicked one i go , but ........YES he was right , Broad was not given out by the umpire in a Ashes test and if it was me in that position i would without a doubt done exactly the same .

 

[Danny-Boy]

W.G Grace wouldn't have walked.

Dunno why we don't play for HIS ashes.