July 13, 2013

Is there a different moral code for batsmen?

Michael Jeh
Broad's heart may have skipped a beat but his body language betrayed no despair  © PA Photos

The immediate public reaction to the Stuart Broad caught-behind incident overnight was predictable. Many of my cricket friends that I've spoken to, cricketers who have played a high standard of grade cricket in Australia, are nonplussed by the fuss being generated by the popular media, presumably driven by the sentiments of the public, many of whom have never played cricket at a high enough level to understand that mistakes of this nature are part and parcel of the game.

From those who have played the game to any significant extent, the reaction was that it was no big deal. Umpires make mistakes, even howlers. Batsmen are perfectly entitled to stand their ground, fielders are entitled to show instinctive disbelief and disappointment, and the game moves on. The very "Australian-ness" of the moment was not lost on any of the folk I canvassed this morning. It is a widely accepted truism that Australia has always been slower to embrace the notion of "walking", happy enough to take the good with the bad.

Peter Siddle said as much in his excellent post-match interview. In his laconic, laidback style, he made it clear that the Australian team had accepted that they had got the rough end of the pineapple, but that it was part and parcel of modern cricket. A few journalists tried to make mountains out of molehills but the burly Victorian wasn't taking the bait. The spirit-of-cricket rubbish was thrown up in the air and Siddle calmly defused that grenade by pointing to the fact that the Australians just got on with the game and were unable to dismiss Broad by the end of play. Their immediate disappointment, disbelief and frustration were as instinctive as they were understandable. From the highlights reel that I saw, it did not appear that Australia lingered too long in the aftermath. Fair play to all concerned.

The only people I encountered who appeared shocked by Broad's brazen insouciance were those who had not played cricket at a competitive level and therefore (quite understandably) did not appreciate that this incident cannot be viewed in isolation. Their understanding of the spirit of cricket seems to be based purely on what they think the words mean in a literal sense, rather than on an appreciation of the nuances of the term as it has come to mean in the modern professional game.

Perhaps it is incumbent upon the ICC or FICA (representing players' voices) to clarify exactly what the spirit of cricket is meant to cover in a pragmatic sense. I wonder if the intent of the spirit is to legislate against things like racist sledging, match-fixing, ball-tampering and umpire abuse? It is certainly difficult to believe that the clause was invoked to stamp down on such acts of dishonesty as not walking, because that just opens up too many inconsistencies.

For example, if one argues that Denesh Ramdin's recent suspenson was because he knew that the ball had dropped from his gloves, it is difficult then to believe that Broad also did not know that he nicked it. Likewise Ricky Ponting must have known that he nicked it in the last World Cup* against Pakistan when he calmly stood his ground, and to his credit, equally calmly walked off the field when the third umpire upheld the Pakistani referral. So merely knowing cannot be a valid criterion for breaching the code (although Ramdin appears to have been judged by it).

What is the difference between a batsman who knows he has nicked it and a fielder who claims a catch that he knows has been grassed? Is there one moral code that applies to the point of impact, when ball passes/hits bat, and another for anything that happens after that point of impact? As one non-cricketer asked me today (and a valid question it was too), does the batsman have some sort of immunity from morality that no other player on the field can rightfully lay claim to?

When I asked her to explain further, she wanted to know why the game places no expectation on a batsman to be honest but frowns upon a fielder who claims a catch that has bounced, or a fielder who steps over the boundary line and does not confess to it. Her point was that if it is perfectly acceptable for a batsman to stand his ground when he clearly knows that he edged the ball, and live or die by the umpire's verdict, why is it that there appears to be a different sort of moral obligation on that same player if he were a fielder and claimed a low catch that he knew to have slipped from his fingers?

The tension and bad blood stems from this lack of clarity. Is it in the intent, the knowledge of a crime committed, or something that happens after the impact zone of bat, pad and ball? As it currently stands, there appears to be two different zones of honesty

While I totally support Broad's decision to stand his ground, would I judge him any more harshly if he claimed a catch that did not carry? If I was being honest, the answer is yes. I myself am a victim of that duality of morality that we've come to accept because we've played the game, but for all that, it makes no sense to someone looking in from the outside without any knowledge of that invisible code of honour.

Where did we learn this honour code? Has it just been passed down from generation to generation, defying national boundaries and cultures? Is it enough to just shrug our shoulders and hide behind the "this is cricket" sort of statement?

That's where I think the ICC or FICA could articulate what the spirit of cricket means in the modern context at the professional level. It might help to ease the tensions and confusion when an incident like this happens. Their clarification needs to be clear about the fact that it only applies to games where neutral umpires are in charge, because we all know that if we are playing in a game where there is no neutral umpire, it is generally considered poor form to deliberately cheat when one of your own team-mates is the one reluctantly standing in the white coat.

Australia have set the standard in this series by accepting the umpire's verdict with as much grace as one can expect under the circumstances, given the state of the match and the desperation of the moment. They might cop a few more poor decisions before the pendulum swings back in their favour, as it will inevitably do over the next nine Tests. England will hopefully display similar grace under fire when they cop a few shockers.

No one expects any team to just smile and get on with it. There will be that flash of disappointment, that kick of the turf, the odd profanity that is involuntarily uttered, and the swish of the bat as a batsman walks away after a rough decision. To deny the player that moment of humanity is to suck the very spirit from the game. What remains unclear is exactly where the line in the sand is when it comes to that spirit. And that's where the custodians of the game can do us all a favour by clarifying exactly what this ubiquitous beast is. The tension and bad blood stems from this lack of clarity. Is it in the intent, the knowledge of a crime committed, or something that happens after the impact zone of bat, pad and ball? As it currently stands, there appears to be two different zones of honesty and that is an anomaly that needs to be clarified.

I must confess to a grudging admiration of Broad's split-second reaction at the point of impact. Unless he genuinely did not know he had nicked it (which I find difficult to believe), it was probably this lack of a guilty reaction that saved his bacon. I think back to times when I've tried to get away with a fine edge and it was often that first trigger movement or slump of the shoulders that gave the game away. Jonny Bairstow's reaction when he edged thinly to the wicketkeeper was more natural, that moment when reality could not fight deception. Broad's heart may have skipped a beat but his body language showed none of that despair. American singer-songwriter Lauryn Hill couldn't have been thinking of Broad when she opined that "reality is easy. It's deception that's the hard work".

*13 July, 2013, 09:41:31 GMT: The article originally said Australia played Pakistan in the quarter-finals of the World Cup. They played each other in the group stage.

Michael Jeh is an Oxford Blue who played first-class cricket, and a Playing Member of the MCC. He lives in Brisbane

RSS Feeds: Michael Jeh

Keywords: Controversy, Spirit of cricket

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by SamRoy on (July 16, 2013, 6:02 GMT)

If there is a ban that needs to be put it should be on Chris Broad.

Posted by left_arm_unorthodox on (July 16, 2013, 4:29 GMT)

In the USA the Fifth Amendment says... "[n]o person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Does walking come under self-incrimination? A fielder who claims a non-catch is trying to 'incriminate' someone else (the batter) and would not be subject to the same protection. Of course, no one pretends that the US constitution pertains to cricket. Just a thought...

Anyway, how often does a fielding captain call back a batter when they are given out wrongly? Less often than a batsman walks, that's for sure.

In the end, at the professional level where there are umpires and DRS and the like, the only way to achieve consistency is to leave everything to the umpires. I have no problem with this, except for the example it sets for younger players and lower grades, where umpires don't have all the extra toys to back them up.

Posted by teadrinker on (July 15, 2013, 16:46 GMT)

Thanks for another thought provoking article. The difference between a batsman who nicks it and doesn't walk and the fielder who claims a catch he knows he has dropped is in the word 'claim'. The fielder who claims the catch is using deception with the intention of influencing the umpires decision. The batsman is making no claim, he merely stands there and awaits a decision. If after edging the ball Broad had looked at the umpire and tapped the edge of his bat and shaken his head then there would have been a moral equivalence to the Ramdin case. He didn't.

Posted by py0alb on (July 15, 2013, 15:31 GMT)

Of course, its not restricted to batsmen, bowlers frequently appeal vociferously when they know perfectly well that the ball was missing leg stump. Do they call the bloke back after the finger has been raised? Of course not, you play to the umpire and if you get a lucky decision you keep schtum and apologise to the victim in the pub after the game (you should buy him a pint perhaps).

Posted by Speng on (July 15, 2013, 13:37 GMT)

@chris_gin: yours is the only reasonable explanation I've ever heard given in this respect regarding the fielder. In my opinion in professional cricket no batsman is under an obligation to walk. The umpires are supposed to be the best and highly experienced then humongous howlers as this one was said to be (I was listening on the radio) shouldn't happen. It's one thing at your local village game but when pay checks and national glory are at stake the standards aren't quite the same.

Posted by py0alb on (July 15, 2013, 12:50 GMT)

In my mind, its to do with what the umpires can and cannot reasonably be expected to judge for themselves. An lbw, a nick, a stumping or a close catch should always be within view of a set of attentive umpires, which therefore puts the onus on them to get the decision right, and relieves the players from the necessity of self-regulation.

On the other hand, a fielder who fakes a catch in the outfield or picks the ball up the other side of the boundary rope is out of sight of the umpire (in the amateur game at least). Its therefore expected of him to signal honestly whether or not it went over. Interestingly this is now not the case in professional matches where the boundary can be checked by the 3rd umpire.

Posted by IndianSRTfan on (July 15, 2013, 4:32 GMT)

Wow. Batsman's game through and through isn't it? Answer to the question posed in the article's title is simple (acc. to me anyways), YES batsman are judged on a different scale.

My issue is if no one questions the old maxim that "benefit of doubt" must be given to the batsman coz he only gets one opportunity to score runs, then why can't it be expected of them to walk for "a single form" of dismissal, i.e. Thin/faint nicks behind wicket which umpire can't hear/see/judge, out of many others like LBW, run-out, which negate the question walking altogether? Why complicate this by fussing over exact definition of "Spirit of Cricket"?

Leave aside ethics nd morals for a moment, what Broad did/does will be part of his legacy and people will remember him by that, but the law should be same for everyone. What''s the difference between Broad's and Ramdin's behavior? Both acted within their rights, but both were guilty of claiming something untrue. One was punished, so should be the other one.

Posted by chris_gin on (July 14, 2013, 21:32 GMT)

The main difference between a batsman and fielder is that the fielder's word is (usually) taken whether he's saying he caught it or did not catch it. A batsman cannot say he did not nick it when given out, so therefore it's only fair that he doesn't have to say he did nick it when given not out.

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 14, 2013, 16:37 GMT)

Good article. The Spirit of Cricket is frequently invoked rather as people in the US claim something with which they disagree to be 'unconstitutional'. Individuals with no particular interest in and little understanding of the game love to point to supposed debauching of the Spirit of Cricket as proof of alleged declining moral standards in the wider world.

Posted by RAJEESHKUMAR on (July 14, 2013, 12:31 GMT)

There is 2 stages in the career of Tendulkar in terms of this context. He used to walk on edges until 1999 Australian tour. That series defined the second term of his captaincy as a complete failure. he had been wrongly given out 3 times in 6 innings in that series. I strongly believes that the first test at adeilede was completely decided by incorrect umpiring decisions. In the first innings, aus were at 50+ for 4 at one stage. Ponting and S Waugh started the repair and when ponting was at 60+ he edged one to keeper and did not given out. He went on to score a century and aus made close to 400. In india's first innings, they were at 100+ for 4, when sachin and ganguly were at crease. They eased along. But when sachin reached 60+ he was given out caught at short leg. Two crucial decisions both in favour of aus turned the match I believe, In the second innings the famous shoulder before wicket. I think sachin was just shocked to see that being given out. After that he never walked.

Posted by nayonika on (July 14, 2013, 8:05 GMT)

So much debate and heartburn on a ball spilled for a nano second and on a ball firmly edged and held cleanly. Why doesn't somebody ask Broad Sr. about the merit of the junior Broad standing his ground. I imagine his reply would broadly be like this,"Oh come on old chap,I don't think any impressionable youngsters were watching the match". As for me walking is not an exercise I would do while batting. I bat to take runs and am not there to go and walk.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 14, 2013, 7:44 GMT)

@Manish Sharma, I agree the DRS is being used to 'buy' a life or wicket in modern cricket in a lot of cases reviews are wasted on % chance especially for LBW's.

The best captains are the ones that use it for what its intended to be used for Strauss was very good with DRS and Cook has carried on, such that he will ask what they thought then make a decision especially on LBW's where Prior and the bowler are consulted and a decision made, if theres even the slightest chance its not hitting they dont review.

For saving wickets a batsman knows if hes not hit the ball (feather edges excepted), Watson yesterday was a great example, of correct appliance, Clarke was an example of bad appliance of the review, you can normally tell if a batsman knows as he whips his head back to see where the balls gone.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 5:13 GMT)

why we are not talking about the misuse of DRS by many teams. it was introduced to remove the howlers whereas it is now being used to save their best batsman or to claim other teams best batsman and the result is what we got in Broad's case. cricket is the loser

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 3:38 GMT)

DID Clarke walk in Perth 2008 when he was caught by Dravid of Kumble. Did Ponting walk when the whole world knew he had nicked it to Dhoni off Ganguly in SYdney 2008. Did Symonds walk when he was caught behind off Ishant in the same test. Why did Gilchrist claim caught behind of Dravid of Symonds bowling when the whole world knew he had not nicked it. Broad was well within the rules of the game and the spirit of the game to stand. While it was nice of Hot spot inventor to say sorry to Trott, I believe he was out and the inside edge if at all happened , it was only after hitting the pads. There was no need for Andy Flower to make an issue out of it. The Asian cricketing countries India SL and PAk play lot fairer and accept the umpiring decisions more respectfully

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 3:14 GMT)

Hmmm... what goes up comes down!!! The infamous sydney test against India in 07-08 where the aussies did everything possible to win the match.... Peter rebouk the australian writer declared pontings men as "pack of wolves"!!! Ricky ponting was out caught down the leg side of ishant.... Did he walk???? (aus were 45/2)..... Symonds was out caught behind again ... did he walk????...... Rahul dravid had not nicked the ball in second innings and gilchrist claimed for his catch (gilchrist later admitted that he knew dravid had not nicked)..... now why are we whiniging about 1 dismissal of broad and the media talking about moral standards...... you can walk the walk if you walk the talk!!!

Posted by kitk on (July 14, 2013, 3:07 GMT)

Interesting the comments here and other places that nicks to the keeper should be treated differently to nicks to the slips. This was actuaally a nick that Haddin deflected, even dropped, before Clark caught it. Does that make a difference?

Posted by inswing on (July 14, 2013, 3:00 GMT)

Australia had no option but to "gracefully" accept the non-walk, as the are the most blatant practitioners of it. The asterisk test of 2008, anyone? Attempting to claim that this is "negative dishonesty" while claiming is a catch is "positive dishonest" and somehow negative is better is laughable - everyone knows there is no difference. It pretty much depends on who does it. If Australia or England, it is hard nosed professional cricket. For anyone else, it is lack of morality. For Aus and Eng, it is "the sprit of cricket rubbish" as Jeh puts it, for others it is just "spirit of cricket". How convenient.

Posted by usernames on (July 14, 2013, 1:27 GMT)

... continued

have done. So, blaming him or anyone else doesn't serve a purpose. The only point of discussion should be the role of the ICC and its match referees here.

ICC's governing of the game has been very poor. I think the Australian team's reaction was excellent, but, and this is just my opinion, the English tactics of constantly asking for 'clarity' or going to other teams' dressing rooms asking for a reprieve when they feel they are on the receiving end of the stick also needs to stop. You get a wrong decision, you move on. Those things will happen, with or without technology. Trying to influence those decisions in any way doesn't and won't help--it just sets a very poor example when you take sides when it suits you.

Posted by usernames on (July 14, 2013, 1:22 GMT)

I think the only point of discussion here should be ICC's treatment of what are mostly similar cases in dissimilar ways. Yes, you get that odd decision in your favor, someone is at the receiving end, and the game moves on. Broad's incident isn't the first of its kind and it certainly won't be the last.

However, and we can argue on the semantics here if we are trying to protect one side or the other, the more important part is that the sport's governing body condemned one side's player and banned him for two matches in an important tournament whereas there will be no such decision in this case in all likelihood. That's a dangerous precedent being set.

Both Ramdin and Broad knew that they hadn't caught and had nicked the ball respectively but both let the umpire make the decision. In one case, the umpire made the right decision and in the other, he didn't. Broad didn't do anything wrong (well, the 'wrong' part is questionable, but he certainly didn't do anything others wouldn't TBC...

Posted by Twinkie on (July 14, 2013, 0:43 GMT)

I thought I was the only one who realised that Ramdin did not appeal! That is why he pleaded not guilty, I'm sure. I've seen Aussie keepers get away with worse. Check out Brad Haddin and Ian Healy on Youtube. Ramdin should never have been penalised. ALL decisions should be left to the umpire. He is paid to make a decision based on what he sees. No player should be obligated to help him. Few teams care about the spirit of the game. Those who do play at a disadvantage. This is not the first time a Windies keeper has been hard done by. Ask Tony Cozier about the India:Windies series when Ridley Jacobs was suspended for breaking the stumps after dropping the ball. This though he did not even appeal! Cozier wrote about the inconsistency that allowed Tendulkar to stand his ground after a thick edge while Jacobs was suspended. Michael Holding stated after the Ramdin incident that he hoped that this rule will be applied consistently for ALL nations. Read between his lines, people!

Posted by Cricket24 on (July 13, 2013, 22:48 GMT)

I play U-15 cricket in the States against adults and even they don't walk when they've edged the ball, and so neither do we. I think it depends on what the opposition is doing and if they have walked, you should consider it. But as it has been said before, there is no compellation for the batsmen to walk. Also a fielder shouldnt be penalized if he claims a catch that he has spilled if he id not sure or if his eyes rnt on the ball

Posted by mngc1 on (July 13, 2013, 22:24 GMT)

Having followed cricket for years many of the borderline decisions tend to go the way of the higher ranked team. If you check WI vs England matches in 2012 there were 25 reviews. In only 5 were the umpires correct. 10 were definitely wrong and were heavily in favour of England before overturning. The "On Field Calls" were also in England's favour.

In Ramdin's case there was a fraction of a second when he had control until he moved to get up. He was punished for bringing the game into disrepute because youngsters would have been looking on. Broad's catch was there for all to see and the same reason applies but because he is from a high ranked team nothing will happen. As Holding says, one rule for Ramdin and another for Broad. Time to level the playing field.

Posted by Iqbal_Hasan on (July 13, 2013, 21:32 GMT)

@Sifter. All very well, but Broad edged to the keeper, and the keeper deflected it to slip.So... by your reckoning, he was well within his rights to stand his ground

Posted by sifter132 on (July 13, 2013, 20:51 GMT)

Simple rule should be you must walk for any catch to a non-keeper (providing it obviously carries of course...). I've never met anyone who played cricket who wasn't sure if he'd edged to slip, and that is ultimately the reason why a catch to the keeper is a grey area - sometimes you just aren't sure as a batsman that you've nicked it. Why should you volunteer your wicket if you aren't sure? But Broad was sure, and a rule like that would certainly apply to Broad, the most blatant non walk I've seen since Michael Clarke edging Kumble to first slip vs India in that spite filled Test of 2008 - but even he eventually walked off after a few seconds of belligerence.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 19:27 GMT)

Did England request clarification on the Agar stumping & Trott's LBW from ICC?? If they did they are already losing the race to be the most gracious team in this series( vs the Aussies no one can say they say that coming). Somehow I don't see them requesting a clarification from ICC about Broad cutting the ball to slip.I played youth cricket for Jamaica and I walked mainly because I saw my hero Lara walk. So these pros do have the responsibility to set good examples for those who look up to them.

Posted by Cluedin on (July 13, 2013, 17:11 GMT)

From the reports I understand that Ramdin's action was reviewed on the request of the on field umpire and the decision overturned. If the on field umpire had not reviewed, the original that Misbah was out would have stood and no one probably would have seen too many replays. In this case also if the on field umpire had checked whether Broad was out or not, then there would not have been any controversy. Since the on field umpire was not having a doubt, Broad survived. Both the actions are morally wrong but have come to be an accepted way of gaining advantage in sport, the reason being that there is referee whose job it is to adjudicate on these issues and if the referee makes a mistake, so be it.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 17:07 GMT)

You can look at it the other way too, the batsman is expected to remain silent and wait for the decision, while the bowling team is free to plead its case till they're blue in the face. It's the way cricket is structured that the fielding side must 'appeal' for a decision, ie; they must petition the umpire, while the batsman is a passive participant (hence the harsher penalties on them for 'dissent')

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 16:15 GMT)

Gihanperera is dead right. In general, appealing for a catch that had been grassed would involve engaging with the laws in a spirit of positive dishonesty, whereas not walking does not engage with the laws at all (whether honestly or no). The treatment of Ramdin seems harsh, in the light of this distinction, as he does not seem to have appealed (the other members of his side did that).

There is another aspect to grassed catches, apart from the fact that cricketers do generally apply an honour code to catching. This is that the umpire is usually in a good position to judge whether there was an edge, and often not in any position to see whether the ball bounced (eg, if the catcher has dived between both umpires and the alleged point of contact with the ground). Conversely, fielders usually know whether they caught it, on feel. With really fine edges, batsmen often don't know if they hit it (eg Joe Root wasn't sure, although he probably wasn't out, in England's first innings).

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 14:01 GMT)

Posted by Inducker on (July 13, 2013, 10:39 GMT) Why limit the fuss to claiming a catch? Every time fielders appeal they are trying to influence the umpires decision. Granted the appeal started as a "respectful" question possibly to keep the umpire awake...

The laws of cricket are quite clear; if the fielding side believes they have got the batsmen out, they must appeal to the umpire. This includes if the bowler has knocked middle stump out of the ground. The batsman is only out once the umpire raises his finger. Appealing is not intimidation per se, it's a requirement.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 12:26 GMT)

I have often commented on the inconsistency in cricket etiquette. Mankading comes to mind, where a batsman is clearly gaining an advantage which will probably allow him to avoid a close run out at the other end. All of us who've played the game have accepted lbws when we have known the batsman has edged it or appealed successfully for a catch behind when we've known the batsman hasn't hit it. Another example is batsmen not running overthrows when they are accidently hit by a fielder's shy at the stumps. yet we happily accept the good fortune of a deflected run out. After reading your article I've now formed the opinion that Ramdin should not have been sanctioned. In this case the outsider who hasn't grown up with the unwritten code can see the inconsistency.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 11:23 GMT)

An excellent article, indeed. \hereas it is true that umpiring errors are and will continue to be part of the game, perhaps it is also time that the authorities concerned should deliberate on, and hopefully, lay down, principles of ethics that

Posted by IndiaGoats on (July 13, 2013, 11:14 GMT)

Ramdin was banned for 2 ODIs. Why not Broad?

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 10:57 GMT)

As demigoat said, is it not a question of the difference between misrepresentation and non-disclosure? Broad didn't claim not to have hit it, he just let the umpire make the decision. Clarity is what Michael calls for, but full clarity is impossible, even with such great technology. What's more, knowledge is not testable. Ultimately, there are no easy answers, but I do think that batsmen who don't walk or bowlers who celebrate wickets they know weren't out shouldn't complain if they get a howler. As Michael said, Siddle's interview was excellent and showed the best possible response from a player; to get on with it and play as hard as possible. The response from the Australian players was phenomenal and deserves credit. I do have one question: why, in such cases, does the umpire not go to the third umpire? To my knowledge he's always allowed to if he's not sure and ask a question.

Posted by gihanperera on (July 13, 2013, 10:53 GMT)

You can argue forever about morality, but in this case the answer is simple: Yes, there is a BIG difference between not walking and claiming a grassed catch. The Laws of Cricket REQUIRE the fielding side to appeal to the umpire, so appealing for a knowingly grassed catch is clearly cheating. There is no requirement for the batsman to do anything except stand his ground and wait for a decision.

Posted by Inducker on (July 13, 2013, 10:39 GMT)

Why limit the fuss to claiming a catch? Every time fielders appeal they are trying to influence the umpires decision. Granted the appeal started as a "respectful" question possibly to keep the umpire awake but has morphed into anything from a cry of disappointment to trying to intimidate the batsman to seriously trying to influence or intimidate the umpire who if he doesn't give a particular decision out might give way in a following one e.g. bat pad catches. Are batsmen allowed to appeal the umpire by yelling " not out "or using false gestures such as looking at or touching the bat? I agree banning for an isolated claiming of a catch was silly. A private word and only a ban if the behaviour is repetitive 'should be sufficient.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 9:52 GMT)

excellent article and point worth to b noted....what if caught behind decisons should be made sole responsibility of a batsmen?

Posted by Chris_Howard on (July 13, 2013, 9:44 GMT)

Too often in a career, a batsmen will be incorrectly given out. I think it's reasonable to let them have a few go in their favour and so they shouldn't have to walk.

Posted by skilebow on (July 13, 2013, 9:35 GMT)

You have missed another angle to this. What happens when a batsman plays and misses and is given out? If you think Broad should have walked then surely you expect the fielding side to call back such a batsman to continue his innings. Why should a batsman walk but a bowler not call back?

Posted by ODI_BestFormOfCricket on (July 13, 2013, 9:25 GMT)

Clarke has no moral right to ask broad to walk or to talk about spirit. Had he walket when he edged in first test against india last series against ashwin?

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 9:04 GMT)

My understanding of why a fielder claiming a bump ball is reprimanded, but not a batsman who doesn't walk (only an explanation, not a justification): Appealing by a fielder is an 'action' something which has to be done for the umpire to then decide, while not walking is 'inaction'. The umpire, irrespective of the batsman has to decide if the bowling team has appealed. An unjust action tends to be judged more harshly than an unjust in-action, hence the differential treatment. Of course, in both cases, a reprimanded would be relevant only if ICC is sure that the fielder or the batsmen knew the ball had bounced/they had nicked it.

Posted by demigoat on (July 13, 2013, 8:46 GMT)

There is no moral equivalence between not walking and claiming a catch one knows didn't carry. It's the difference between misrepresentation and non-disclosure, between lying/perjury and declining to answer the question and it's a difference well-established in law and morality. Not to condone Broad (and others) - I'd prefer that they all walked - but if your instinct is that claiming the grassed catch is worse, your instincts are sound.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 8:36 GMT)

Australia played Pakistan in the Group Stages , not in the quarter final. Other than that a very Good article.

Comments have now been closed for this article


Michael Jeh
Born in Colombo, educated at Oxford and now living in Brisbane, Michael Jeh (Fox) is a cricket lover with a global perspective on the game. An Oxford Blue who played first-class cricket, he is a Playing Member of the MCC and still plays grade cricket. Michael now works closely with elite athletes, and is passionate about youth intervention programmes. He still chases his boyhood dream of running a wildlife safari operation called Barefoot in Africa.

All articles by this writer