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

[Basil Fawlty]

He should of walked, but if the Umpire didn't see it and didn't raise his finger. Then he had every right to walk down that wicket and have a chat to Ian Bell. Plus The Aussies lost all their reviews on one stupid LBW decision, which was going so far down legside as well.

 

[DJ Leon]

Of course he cheated. He has known since the age of about four what the rules are

I'll ask again, what law did he break?

Personally, I think he should have walked. I'd love it if everyone walked. But ultimately there are no rules that say he should. In my mind I can't therefore call him a cheat.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

He should of walked, but if the Umpire didn't see it and didn't raise his finger. Then he had every right to walk down that wicket and have a chat to Ian Bell.

That's the whole concept of walking, isn't it? Making the decision for the umpire.

 

[Tooting Gull]

I'll ask again, what law did he break?

Personally, I think he should have walked. I'd love it if everyone walked. But ultimately there are no rules that say he should. In my mind I can't therefore call him a cheat.

I can't give you anything new. It's the law that says if you are caught, you are out. And it's especially true here because it was so blatant, he knew it, and the entire world has seen it.

Broad has obviously been covered up here by the ECB media machine, and I'm not sure I can bring myself to read whatever soft-soap questions are eventually spoon-fed to a single slavering paper.

I would just like him to explain himself what he did, why he did it, address what the possible implications are etc etc. We're going to end up with someone so grateful for the exclusive interview after the lockdown you might get his favourite colour if you're lucky.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

The Broad debate reminds me very much of something that Michael Owen said last year at the Leaders in Football conference, that got him into a lot of trouble - and was all about where the lines fall between professionalism, sportsmanship and cheating.

He basically admitted in an open forum in front of hundreds of people including media that he had gone to ground against Argentina in the World Cup in the area when he didn't have to, and could have stayed on his feet under the tiniest of contact.



Interestingly, I had a ' holier than thou ' attitude to ' cheating, up to that particular game. Having seen Argentina get an early penalty for a blatant dive ( some Southampton manager ) I was happy at the time that Owen had levelled up the score. I then started to realise that in the heat of the moment, my principles had gone clean out of the window. I was codoning cheating and forgetting my own personal adage that two wrongs don't make a right.
I now faced a dilemma in life. Did I treat this reaction as a one-off ( bias v Argentina etc ) and go back to my previous moral high ground or did I accept that in modern sporting society, the ' corinthian ' spirit, although admirable, was unrealistic. By 1998 it was already obvious that previously frowned upon acts of gamesmanship in football were starting to become commonplace and when Diego Simeone fell theatrically in the second half under negligible contact from David Beckham, my mind was made up. There was no going back. I didn't like it and I still don't like it but I had to accept its inevitability.
I played cricket for many years, starting at village level and graduating to top club cricket and minor representative level. I witnessed many examples of non-walking, when blatantly out and knew many serial non-walkers. I encountered all manner of gamesmanship from ball tampering, to keepers deliberately knocking the bails off, to grounded catches being claimed, to fielders in the deep and ' out of sight ' not admitting to boundaries. Slow over rates, bowlers deliberately running on the wicket and sledging, from subtle whispering to downright abuse.
I couldn't count the number of times I was given out when not out. I walked when I knew I was out and stood my ground when I wasn't sure. Many years ago, when I hadn't made a senior hundred, I was 99 n.o. My partner called a risky single and I knew I had been run out. Our umpire gave me not out to the anger of the opposition. Next ball, I hit four to go to a century and win the match. I walked off to serious mutterings from the opposition and a bit of a sour feeling. I knew in my heart of hearts that the umpire had spared me.
My point is, you can't separate sport at the highest level from all levels below it. If someone doesn't want to walk, he won't. Its not new. Its always gone on.
If its ok for people to come on this site accusing Broad of cheating then I will expect exactly the same vitriol poured on the head of every BHA player who blatantly cheats next season.

 

[keaton]

Tooting, do you manage to enjoy Albion games at all? because on minutely basis we're cheating then

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

He should of walked, but if the Umpire didn't see it and didn't raise his finger. Then he had every right to walk down that wicket and have a chat to Ian Bell. Plus The Aussies lost all their reviews on one stupid LBW decision, which was going so far down legside as well.

But Broad at the time would not have known if the bowler had bowled a no ball, easily missed by er...... the same umpire who missed the bat hitting the ball. Therefore he was right, in the present day, to await the decision. The real mistake was made by the Aussies in getting carried away with the review system, they're worse than the sweaty in tennis who virtually loses all his hawk eye calls.

 

[DJ Leon]

I can't give you anything new. It's the law that says if you are caught, you are out.

Correct, but he's not required to make that call. The umpire is.

And it's especially true here because it was so blatant, he knew it, and the entire world has seen it.

That happens quite a lot though doesn't it? Very few batsmen walk - why be so angry with Broad?

Broad has obviously been covered up here by the ECB media machine, and I'm not sure I can bring myself to read whatever soft-soap questions are eventually spoon-fed to a single slavering paper.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here. What have they covered up?

I would just like him to explain himself what he did, why he did it, address what the possible implications are etc etc. We're going to end up with someone so grateful for the exclusive interview after the lockdown you might get his favourite colour if you're lucky.

What possible implications could there be? You are really overblowing this.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Tooting, do you manage to enjoy Albion games at all? because on minutely basis we're cheating then

That's quite a leap. You're going to have to explain exactly what you mean. Nothing on that scale and to that degree goes on in most Albion matches, as far as I am aware.

But if you mean do I shrug my shoulders when a grinning Suarez handballs the ball into the Mansfield net and say "ah well, that's just professional football", then no I don't. It has no place.

There are some people on this subject who just don't want to hear it.

What about the West Indian wicketkeeper Ramdin who was banned for two games for falsely claiming a catch? Can you give me a single good reason why that shouldn't happen to Broad, by any fairness, judgment and consistency?

 

[brixtonA23]

Michael Atherton caught behind at the SCG but held is ground. When the slip cordon and wicketkeeper tried to sledge his unsportsmanlike behaviour, he simply stated 'when in Rome'.

Adam Gilchrist walked and was slated.

Umpires decision. Nowadays you wait.

 

[Brovion]

...

What about the West Indian wicketkeeper Ramdin who was banned for two games for falsely claiming a catch? Can you give me a single good reason why that shouldn't happen to Broad, by any fairness, judgment and consistency?

I would say because that IS cheating, on a par with diving at football. By your actions you're trying to con the referee/umpire into making a wrong decision. Broad on the other hand behaved in a neutral manner; he didn't walk, but on the other hand he didn't rub his shoulder or try to tell the umpire that it had bounced out of Haddin's gloves, he simply stood there and waited for the umpire to make his decision - which is what cricketers have done since the game first became organised.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

That's quite a leap. You're going to have to explain exactly what you mean. Nothing on that scale and to that degree goes on in most Albion matches, as far as I am aware.

But if you mean do I shrug my shoulders when a grinning Suarez handballs the ball into the Mansfield net and say "ah well, that's just professional football", then no I don't. It has no place.

There are some people on this subject who just don't want to hear it.

What about the West Indian wicketkeeper Ramdin who was banned for two games for falsely claiming a catch? Can you give me a single good reason why that shouldn't happen to Broad, by any fairness, judgment and consistency?

Why are you SO vehement that Stuart Broad has 'cheated' and none of the others who are guilty of EXACTLY the same thing, in this very same test match? Why is Brad Haddin spared your ire, for example? Please don't say its because one edge was 'more obvious' than the other. That would be a daft argument. that would be to say that a 'little bit of cheating is okay'.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I would say because that IS cheating, on a par with diving at football. By your actions you're trying to con the referee/umpire into making a wrong decision. Broad on the other hand behaved in a neutral manner; he didn't walk, but on the other hand he didn't rub his shoulder or try to tell the umpire that it had bounced out of Haddin's gloves, he simply stood there and waited for the umpire to make his decision - which is what cricketers have done since the game first became organised.

Spot on.

 

[keaton]

That's quite a leap. You're going to have to explain exactly what you mean. Nothing on that scale and to that degree goes on in most Albion matches, as far as I am aware.

But if you mean do I shrug my shoulders when a grinning Suarez handballs the ball into the Mansfield net and say "ah well, that's just professional football", then no I don't. It has no place.

There are some people on this subject who just don't want to hear it.

What about the West Indian wicketkeeper Ramdin who was banned for two games for falsely claiming a catch? Can you give me a single good reason why that shouldn't happen to Broad, by any fairness, judgment and consistency?

I think the Ramdin punishment opened up a massive bag of worms.
But what Broad did happens three or four times in every match.
Just like 7 or 8 times in every Albion match a player appeals for an offside, throw-in, foul, dive knowing that he shouldn't? Or tugs a shirt or runs across someone?
That's all against the rules and most of it could be worth a booking for Ungentlemanly Conduct. Surely this is all cheating if not walking is?

 

[Tooting Gull]

I would say because that IS cheating, on a par with diving at football. By your actions you're trying to con the referee/umpire into making a wrong decision. Broad on the other hand behaved in a neutral manner; he didn't walk, but on the other hand he didn't rub his shoulder or try to tell the umpire that it had bounced out of Haddin's gloves, he simply stood there and waited for the umpire to make his decision - which is what cricketers have done since the game first became organised.

Given the blatant nature of the Broad incident, I see very little difference between the two. It went beyond neutral, in my view. If what Broad did wasn't against the spirit of the game, then you should scrap the rule under which Ramdin was banned, as it no longer applies to cricket.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Why are you SO vehement that Stuart Broad has 'cheated' and none of the others who are guilty of EXACTLY the same thing, in this very same test match? Why is Brad Haddin spared your ire, for example? Please don't say its because one edge was 'more obvious' than the other. That would be a daft argument. that would be to say that a 'little bit of cheating is okay'.

Sorry, why is it so hard for you to understand that the blatant nature of the incident is what this is all about, and what distinguishes it? It isn't that difficult a concept.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

But what Broad did happens three or four times in every match.

12 times in this Test match, batsmen edged catches to the wicket-keeper. On TEN of those occasions the batsmen waited for the umpire's decision. The only two who walked without waiting, were Bairstow, and STUART BROAD.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Sorry, why is it so hard for you to understand that the blatant nature of the incident is what this is all about, and what distinguishes it? It isn't that difficult a concept.

So just to be clear here - your view is that not walking when you know you've edged it is okay, so long as its not obvious?

 

[Tooting Gull]

So just to be clear here - your view is that not walking when you know you've edged it is okay, so long as its not obvious?

Any time you want to make something up and attribute it to me, feel free. Although you might as well hold up a banner saying 'I'm losing this argument'.

 

[keaton]

Sorry, why is it so hard for you to understand that the blatant nature of the incident is what this is all about, and what distinguishes it? It isn't that difficult a concept.

It is mental logic. Cheating is wrong if it's blatant, but it's not cheating if not's blatant.