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

[Brovion]

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.

Blimey, well we're going to have to agree to differ there as I think they're worlds apart.

 

[Brovion]

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'.

He's not losing the argument though is he? That's what you ARE saying, it's the blatant-ness that you keep referring to.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

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'.

I'm making nothing up - just trying to clarify your argument, that's all.

As I say, Bairstow edged and walked, without waiting for a decision. Broad did the same (2nd time round). On TEN other occassions a batsman edged a ball to the keeper, and stood and waited for the umpire to give him out (or not). Broad was one of those, as was Haddin. Why is Broad 'a cheat' and not Haddin? You said the difference is 'how blatant' it was. I don't see how that makes any difference at all. Persaonally I walk if I feather it, just as I'd walk if I chipped it back to the bowler. It is no different.

 

[Tooting Gull]

He's not losing the argument though is he? That's what you ARE saying, it's the blatant-ness that you keep referring to.

Maybe there is no argument here. There are those who are happy to condone/be apologists for what he did, and those that aren't, and never the twain etc

You are always going to have a grey area with small nicks, always. And I would never, nor have I, used the world cheating for that. Because you don't know for sure, even if you suspect it. You can't say whether it was deliberate, or knowing.

I know for sure, and so do you, that Broad was well aware he virtually middled that ball. I really can't see why that is such a problem to grasp, but apparently it is.

 

[Brovion]

...
I know for sure, and so do you, that Broad was well aware he virtually middled that ball. I really can't see why that is such a problem to grasp, but apparently it is.

I agree with you there!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Maybe there is no argument here. There are those who are happy to condone/be apologists for what he did, and those that aren't, and never the twain etc

You are always going to have a grey area with small nicks, always. And I would never, nor have I, used the world cheating for that. Because you don't know for sure, even if you suspect it. You can't say whether it was deliberate, or knowing.

I know for sure, and so do you, that Broad was well aware he virtually middled that ball. I really can't see why that is such a problem to grasp, but apparently it is.

Its no problem. Of course he knew he hit it. that's not the argument.

Do you PLAY cricket Tooting?

If you edge a ball, even very faintly, then you know. You feel it through your hands. Brad Haddin knew he had edged it yesterday, every bit as much as Broad knew he'd hit his on Friday.

The only difference I can see between the two, is how thick-skinned Broad was, to stand there, not only knowing that he'd hit it, but also knowing that everyone else knew he'd hit it. Haddin on the other hand, knew that it was a faint one, and he might get away with it. Both cheated, if that's the term you wish to use. You absolutey must apply it to both, or neither.

 

[Tooting Gull]

And for what its worth, I am happy to put my cards on the table and say I have a lot to do with snooker where the culture is very different. Players, top players even at crucial times in finals, regularly call fouls on themselves. You might like cricket get the odd rogue match-fixer, but that is the playing code, rigorously observed. It also happens in golf for the most part.

World No1 Neil Robertson (admittedly an Aussie) called a foul on himself in a big semi-final on Saturday against world No2 Mark Selby before saying out loud: "You wouldn't get Stuart Broad doing that."

These people also want to win, every bit as much, and want the money and the fame every bit as much. It is just ingrained not to behave like that from a young age.

Will that change and get corrupted over time, like cricket and football as the financial rewards increase? Quite possibly, who knows.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Its no problem. Of course he knew he hit it. that's not the argument.

Do you PLAY cricket Tooting?

If you edge a ball, even very faintly, then you know. You feel it through your hands. Brad Haddin knew he had edged it yesterday, every bit as much as Broad knew he'd hit his on Friday.

The only difference I can see between the two, is how thick-skinned Broad was, to stand there, not only knowing that he'd hit it, but also knowing that everyone else knew he'd hit it. Haddin on the other hand, knew that it was a faint one, and he might get away with it. Both cheated, if that's the term you wish to use. You absolutey must apply it to both, or neither.

Yes I do/did, and yes most of the time you know, not always with pad-bat/glove, but usually. And if you say Haddin definitely knew (has he said that? I don't need to hear Broad say it) than yes it would apply to him too.

 

[Hillian1]

Its no problem. Of course he knew he hit it. that's not the argument.

Do you PLAY cricket Tooting?

If you edge a ball, even very faintly, then you know. You feel it through your hands. Brad Haddin knew he had edged it yesterday, every bit as much as Broad knew he'd hit his on Friday.

The only difference I can see between the two, is how thick-skinned Broad was, to stand there, not only knowing that he'd hit it, but also knowing that everyone else knew he'd hit it. Haddin on the other hand, knew that it was a faint one, and he might get away with it. Both cheated, if that's the term you wish to use. You absolutey must apply it to both, or neither.

Would Haddin have really known though Hans, perhaps he thought he'd clipped his pad or something?

That said, I don't care he didn't walk, the Umpires are there to make the decision and he didn't.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Yes I do/did, and yes most of the time you know, not always with pad-bat/glove, but usually. And if you say Haddin definitely knew (has he said that? I don't need to hear Broad say it) than yes it would apply to him too.

Granted, not always with bat-pad. But a nick in the syle of Haddin's, with the bat miles away from the body, you know. Haddin knew.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Would Haddin have really known though Hans, perhaps he thought he'd clipped his pad or something?
.

We'll never know, unless he tells us. But 30 years of playing the game (with tonnes of experience of nicking the ball to the keeper!) tells me he knew.

That said, I don't care he didn't walk, the Umpires are there to make the decision and he didn't.

Correct. that's his right, if that's how they choose to play the game.

 

[brixtonA23]

Its no problem. Of course he knew he hit it. that's not the argument.

Do you PLAY cricket Tooting?

If you edge a ball, even very faintly, then you know. You feel it through your hands. Brad Haddin knew he had edged it yesterday, every bit as much as Broad knew he'd hit his on Friday.

The only difference I can see between the two, is how thick-skinned Broad was, to stand there, not only knowing that he'd hit it, but also knowing that everyone else knew he'd hit it. Haddin on the other hand, knew that it was a faint one, and he might get away with it. Both cheated, if that's the term you wish to use. You absolutey must apply it to both, or neither.

Cheating is a problematical word in sport. Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson and the East German female athletes, sponsored by Gilette, cheated. On a human level I would have loved to see him walk, but the way football has been going in the last decade, I really can't fault his decision. Sad as it is to make that statement.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I really can't fault his decision. Sad as it is to make that statement.

That's where I am too. Spot on.

 

[Brovion]

The interesting thing is a few years ago I'd have 100% agreed with Tooting. Being British we were all brought up, openly or subliminally, with the notion that you play the game for the game's sake and even practising beforehand was a form of cheating. Not walking at cricket was beyond the pale and something only the win-obsessed, uncouth, base, uncultured Colonials did (an echo that can still be seen in this whole debate when people say "An Aussie wouldn't walk"). We Brits were FAR too superior for that. I think I've now finally thrown off that last amateur shackle!

 

[Bold Seagull]

And for what its worth, I am happy to put my cards on the table and say I have a lot to do with snooker where the culture is very different. Players, top players even at crucial times in finals, regularly call fouls on themselves. You might like cricket get the odd rogue match-fixer, but that is the playing code, rigorously observed. It also happens in golf for the most part.

World No1 Neil Robertson (admittedly an Aussie) called a foul on himself in a big semi-final on Saturday against world No2 Mark Selby before saying out loud: "You wouldn't get Stuart Broad doing that."

These people also want to win, every bit as much, and want the money and the fame every bit as much. It is just ingrained not to behave like that from a young age.

Will that change and get corrupted over time, like cricket and football as the financial rewards increase? Quite possibly, who knows.

The referee in snooker hardly ever has an impact on a match, it's a different thing and your actually on your own on that table, so a foul is down to you and nothing else (other than the position you've been put in).

Even the legend Sir Donald Bradman never walked. He said "I'm regularly given out when I am not out, so I stay and let the umpire make a decision".

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I don't blame Broad. He'd had got a proper ticking off from his captain etc if he had walked. This isn't village cricket. This is their job and they will have to do as they are told.

That said, it would be nice if ALL players were free to walk and do just that.

 

[Brovion]

...

Even the legend Sir Donald Bradman never walked. He said "I'm regularly given out when I am not out, so I stay and let the umpire make a decision".

WG Grace once refused to walk when he was clean bowled! He said "The people have come to watch me bat", re-assembled his wicket and carried on. With this event in mind when he was clean bowled playing Australia in 1898 the bowler said "Surely, you're not going, Doc? There's still one stump standing!" (Sledging. Something else that some people think is a modern phenomena).

 

[Tooting Gull]

The referee in snooker hardly ever has an impact on a match, it's a different thing and your actually on your own on that table, so a foul is down to you and nothing else (other than the position you've been put in).

Even the legend Sir Donald Bradman never walked. He said "I'm regularly given out when I am not out, so I stay and let the umpire make a decision".

Factually incorrect. Calling fouls is one of the referee's jobs. A lot of the time they just don't need to, as the players do it. Occasionally they refs will need to call it if say a waistcoat touches a ball that the player can't see or wouldn't have felt. You often hear player and referee calling foul at the same time. The players are also scrupulously honest about replacing the white after a miss, which can materially affect a frame (and potentially a match).

 

[Bold Seagull]

Factually incorrect. Calling fouls is one of the referee's jobs. A lot of the time they just don't need to, as the players do it. Occasionally they refs will need to call it if say a waistcoat touches a ball that the player can't see or wouldn't have felt. You often hear player and referee calling foul at the same time. The players are also scrupulously honest about replacing the white after a miss, which can materially affect a frame (and potentially a match).

I can see you have got a bit of a pendants hat on today. Are you seriously saying referee's in snooker effect a match as much as in cricket?

Anyway, snooker players don't cheat...just don't tell their bookies!!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Snooker is just a pub game. Why would anyone bother cheating anyway?