Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

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

Was Broad right to stand his ground??

  • Yes

    Votes: 116 70.3%
  • No

    Votes: 49 29.7%

  • Total voters
    165
  • Poll closed .






vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
28,274
Is that the same Adam Gilchrist who used to appeal for catches behind the wicket when he knew the batsman hadn't hit it? What's the difference?

I have had no problem with Gilchrist or any other keeper appealing. When you are keeping and you hear a nick and or see a deflection you appeal, if the batsman has been turned by a delivery and there is a nick it could be bat, glove,pad or even clip the batsmans shirt but all keepers will appeal,even our very own.
 




PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
19,642
Hurst Green
Only mistake he made was hitting it, the real errors was the umpires and the aussies for using up their reviews on plainly stupid appeals . Makes up some way for the truly awful decisions yesterday.

The look on their sappy little faces was priceless.
 


melias shoes

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2010
4,830
This is the Aussies we're talking about. Would they have walked. Not on your life. Umpire didn't give it so **** em. Typical Aussies though they will shout about about it but they introduced 'sportsmanship' into cricket. It's a bit like 'sledging' the opposition batsman. Again they invented it and it's great all the time they dish it out but can't handle it when they receive it. Stuff em I say.
 








BRIGHT ON Q

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
9,248
Stand your ground for an edge,but that must have come off the middle of the bat!
 






Tooting Gull

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
11,033
I think whether the Aussies would have walked or not is irrelevant, a complete red herring morally and ethically.

Broad cheated. He is a cheat. You can dress it up any way you like (and don't worry, plenty of media and ex-players will make excuses for him tomorrow, be apologists, come up with phrases like 'it's the modern way' and go very soft on the issue).

Some, hopefully, will be a bit braver including I imagine Paul Hayward. Ultimately you take responsibility for your own actions. It could have been Broad's 'Di Canio' moment. Instead it has soured any England win, and they have totally forfeited any right to ever have a go at Australian sportsmanship ever again.

The piss-poor umpiring, again, is a separate issue. That has nothing to do with cheating. They are mistakes.
 


Scoffers

Well-known member
Jan 13, 2004
6,868
Burgess Hill
He should have walked - just because the Aussies wouldn't walk in the same scenario doesn't make it right in my book. He knew he hit it, as did everyone within a 100 mile radius of Trent Bridge, except the Umpire, it seems.

Take a moment, if you will, to imagine how Broad would have reacted if he had been the bowler, OMG, I reckon he would have torn the place apart.
 




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,769
Chandlers Ford
I think whether the Aussies would have walked or not is irrelevant, a complete red herring morally and ethically.

Broad cheated. He is a cheat. You can dress it up any way you like (and don't worry, plenty of media and ex-players will make excuses for him tomorrow, be apologists, come up with phrases like 'it's the modern way' and go very soft on the issue).

Some, hopefully, will be a bit braver including I imagine Paul Hayward. Ultimately you take responsibility for your own actions. It could have been Broad's 'Di Canio' moment. Instead it has soured any England win, and they have totally forfeited any right to ever have a go at Australian sportsmanship ever again.

The piss-poor umpiring, again, is a separate issue. That has nothing to do with cheating. They are mistakes.

Was it Bairstow's 'Di Canio moment' then? He walked without being given out, and it will be forgotten about, this time tomorrow.

It really is a shame that this is how things are, but in the context of high stakes professional sport, Broad is absolutely entitled to leave it to the umpire to decide.

I completely take granny w's point above, and my views in club cricket remain noble - I'd always walk. Professional cricket is just not the same, sad though that may be.
 








Boroseagull

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2003
2,148
Alhaurin de la Torre
Tough! The Aussies had the chance yesterday to withdraw their appeal when Trott was incorrectly given out LBW, when even the standing umpire was bemused by the reversal. Add to that Agar's 'stumping' by MP, Root walking when no edge was shown on 'hot spot', I make that 3-1 to the Aussies! As they say in Australia....TUP....[toughen up princess].
 


Gazwag

5 millionth post poster
Mar 4, 2004
30,749
Bexhill-on-Sea
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.

We have 29 at the moment
 


Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex
One aspect that nobody seems to have mentioned, here, is the referral system.

Yes that has been put in place to protect them game, but it now is a strategy to be used within the game.
Had the Aussies not 'wasted' their 2 referrals they would have got Broad out.

Having referrals and all the other tech does take the sport further away from it's gentlemanly heritage.
 










Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here