David Hopps
David Hopps David HoppsRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
UK editor, ESPNcricinfo

England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge

Wrong place, wrong time, wrong call

Stuart Broad did only what cricketers have been doing for half a century - but doing it in the full glare of the Ashes has unleashed the sermonising

David Hopps

July 13, 2013

Comments: 111 | Text size: A | A

Stuart Broad didn't walk after edging to slip, England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 3rd day, July 12, 2013
Stuart Broad was not just a beneficiary of umpiring error, he became a victim of it © PA Photos
Enlarge

The media likes nothing better than to moralise and Stuart Broad has felt its full force. He has been presented in some quarters as a symbol of cricket's moral decline, a disgrace to his profession and an appalling example to young children. He has been held responsible for everything except a sudden fall in house prices, although there is time for that yet.

Broad's offence was to do what cricketers - and not just professional cricketers - have been doing for half-a-century or more: he did not walk. But unluckily for him, he did it in the full glare of an Ashes series and so the sermonising has begun.

If technology is now so all-revealing that it offers the chance to readdress that custom, then this is a matter for the game's administrators, not for a young man caught in the crossfire.

Far from being a sinner, Broad is more properly seen as a victim of circumstance. He was not just a beneficiary of umpiring error, he became a victim of it. If protocol meant that Marais Erasmus, the third umpire, could not intervene to tell Aleem Dar he had committed a howler, then it is time to change the protocol.

He also suffered disproportionately because his edge was so apparent. But thousands of batsmen have not walked for thin nicks. Everyone of them deserves a consistent response. Or are we really now to believe that the more obvious the edge the greater the crime?

One of the problems with the Ashes is that non cricket-lovers try to impose their theories of morality on a game which for most of the time gets on perfectly well without them.

That is not to say that cricket does not need the widest possible audience because it does. That is not to say that Broad was not dishonest because he was. It is to observe that the game's traditions, embedded for many years, should play a part in any judgment on his behaviour.

Cricketers rarely walk. That is how it is. Get over it. The practice has always been justified by the fact that over time, fortune will tend to even out. It has also been accepted because it has been impossible to police: a concession to reality. It is not widely seen as unfair play, merely an unfortunate quirk in the game.

Not everybody likes it, but those who play and watch the game regularly understand that it is a personal choice. It is not an issue.

You might as well protest about rugby players illegally feeding a scrum or footballers appealing for offside. As offences against the Spirit of Cricket go, it is not in the first hundred.

ESPNcricinfo is indebted to Venkatraman Ganesan for reminding us of a study by Gary Becker, a Nobel Laureate and professor of economics and sociology at the University of Chicago.

Becker studied what drove dishonest behaviour. His Simple Model of Rational Crime concluded that before engaging in any act that might be regarded as morally inappropriate, the perpetrator would weigh negative implications against the positive.

There were overwhelming reasons why Broad should not have walked:

(I) There is no convention of walking in professional cricket (even in club cricket there is no definite view) which left him free to act as he pleased.

(ii) The umpire gave him not out and there is an ICC process in place to use technology to minimise umpire's errors.

(iii) There was an Ashes Test to win and the match was at a critical juncture. His team expected him to put collective aspirations ahead of individual considerations.

(iv) Australia's condemnation would be immediate, but brief, and it would not be followed up off the field, because they knew they would have done the same.

(v) Never before has a batsman been punished for not walking.

The negatives were purely that he would face a backlash in both the traditional media and on social media and be held up as an example of cricket's moral decline. These negatives have now been unleashed.

Broad stood to gain by holding his ground. He would have been embarrassed by the hand that fate had dealt him, he would have been aware even as he stayed put of the condemnation that would follow, but he would have felt he had little choice but to brazen it out. Becker would surely conclude that his response was entirely rational.

Even to compare his actions to dishonestly claiming a catch on the bounce is a false comparison. Not walking has long been became an accepted convention. That cannot be suggested about a falsely claimed catch and so cricket's view that this constitutes cheating rightly remains.

And as for the Spirit of Cricket? Well, it is a nebulous concept to be sure, but in some areas, it still serves a purpose by vaguely promoting the common good. It should not be paraded to condemn Broad. Neither has he destroyed it overnight. Even the man who wrote the Preamble, Sir Colin Cowdrey, was held by some only to walk for the obvious ones.

It is fun to watch Broad have one of his Malfoy moments. There has always been something of the look of Draco Malfoy, Harry Potter's chief antagonist, about him, as even the England dressing room has recognised by adopting it as one of his nicknames. This reputation has counted against him.

He was a sportsman seeking to do essentially good things: put his reputation on the line and strive to win an Ashes Test. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and now he must suffer the consequences.

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: David Hopps

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Headbandenator on (July 17, 2013, 23:22 GMT)

What is the difference between Broad not walking and Haddin not walking? They both knew they were out.

Posted by Twinkie on (July 17, 2013, 17:47 GMT)

Never thought I'd find myself defending Stuart Broad of all people, but he did nothing wrong. Supposed he had walked and then an Aussie didn't walk (which we know is the likeliest thing to happen) and won the match for Australia. Not even I would have walked against the Aussies! It gives them a clear advantage since they will NOT return the favour! It's like clean athletes going up against designer drug users. You don't stand a chance and your moments and your glory and often your livelihood in endorsements can never be recovered! Leave all decisions to the umpires both on and off field. That will level the playing field a bit. Penalize no one, especially not a keeper for a dropped catch which he never claimed to have caught! And for the last time - RAMDIN DID NOT APPEAL! My goodness, you people are clueless!

Posted by garibaldi on (July 16, 2013, 6:07 GMT)

@Javid, by your token, then, if a batsmen doesn't walk his team doesn't deserve victory? In that case neither side deserves to have won! And indeed no team in international cricket! Or is the issue the umpiring errors? If so, you have to take into account the Agar stumping and the Trott lbw, which more than cancel out Broad's 30-odd runs.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 23:44 GMT)

We had many players who used to walk (azhar , Sachin ) that's why they are legends of the game. According to me irrespective of England winning on books it's Australia who actually won the match

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 15, 2013, 13:44 GMT)

If a batsman's given out caught behind but he hasn't hit it, we expect him to review it. If his team are out of reviews, we expect him to walk off the field and suck it up, because we say that the umpire's decision is final and he has to respect it.

The flip-side to that, however, is that if the batsman's not given out caught behind when he has hit it (like Broad) we expect the fielding side to review it. If they don't have any reviews left, he's entitled to stay on the field and the fielding side have to suck it up, because the umpire's decision is final and they have to respect it.

We can't start demanding batsmen walk if we don't also allow them to stand their ground if they're given out wrongly and don't have any reviews left. People may be angry at Broad for not walking, but if batsmen all start walking, one day we'll have the exact same incident in reverse, with a batsman given out without hitting it and having to leave the field because of having no reviews left. What then?

Posted by mikeindex on (July 15, 2013, 12:43 GMT)

I have no problem with the attitude that if a batsman knows he is out he has a moral duty to give himself out whatever the state of the game. I also have no problem with the attitude, shared these days by 99.9% of professionals and a good 75% of club players, that you have a right to stand your ground and let the umpire make the decision. What is, obviously, an utterly morally bankrupt position is the one adopted by several commentors here that Broad was at fault because his edge was obvious but it's quite OK to stand your ground for a thin nick - i.e. that you have a moral duty to walk , but not if you've got a fair chance of getting away with it.

Posted by bonaku on (July 15, 2013, 10:14 GMT)

Just to enhance his reputation, Board have tried to deliberately waste the time on fifth day as well. I just shows his respect towards sprite of cricket. #NoRoleModel

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 9:30 GMT)

why people are not talking about bradd haddins decision ...he knows that he nicked the ball ,and he would have got away if England had no reviews left .

Posted by garibaldi on (July 15, 2013, 8:56 GMT)

I find this a really interesting case because it has forced people to think about issues which are mostly swept under the carpet. Cpt Meanster, I don't think your view is consistent: why would a slim edge not warrant walking? Surely if the batsman knows he has nicked it, if you believe walking is the right thing to do you, he should walk whether it is obvious or not. Otherwise it is just hypocrisy: "I'll walk if it's obvious and could be embarrassing, but if I think I can get away with it, I'll stand" - what kind of moral position is that?! Personally, I don't agree with what Broad did, but I understand it. The greater fault lies with the umpire and the rules- surely in such a case there needs to be provision for overruling by the 3rd umpire!

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 15, 2013, 7:52 GMT)

"And as for the Spirit of Cricket? Well, it is a nebulous concept to be sure,.."

To many, honesty itself is a nebulous concept!

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 15, 2013, 7:48 GMT)

"Cricketers rarely walk. That is how it is. Get over it. "

I've been watching international cricket for 40 years now and have seldom seen players stand their ground as they do these days when their dismissals are clear as daylight.

It isn't the umpires JOB to give people out. An umpire's JOB is to step in and DECIDE when something is unclear and requires intervention from him. It's time the players are taught how to conduct themselves on the cricket field instead of putting the onus on the umpire.

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 15, 2013, 7:42 GMT)

"That is not to say that Broad was not dishonest because he was."

Then why is the writer in his opening remarks, ridiculing the attention that Broad gets from the media for his actions?

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (July 15, 2013, 7:36 GMT)

"Or are we really now to believe that the more obvious the edge the greater the crime? "

I thought that is commonsense to think that while keeping all belief away! When it's a thin nick, it's entirely possible that the batsmen is unsure if he has nicked it or not and this goes by the same logic of a fielder who is sometimes not sure whether he's taken a clean catch.

Posted by indicricket on (July 15, 2013, 6:40 GMT)

@dailycric, Spot on. Exactly my feeling

Posted by Herbet on (July 14, 2013, 15:34 GMT)

Stuart Broad's reputation, in my mind, has now reached that of almost 'Hero' status. We were playing Australia here, in a test match, Australia are down, their reputation around the world and among themselves is in tatters, they are on the canvass. DO NOT give them the chance to get up. The list of Australians who would not have walked in those circumstances is too long to give when I am limited to 1000 characters, but we can safely say that none of Hayden, Langer, Warne or McGrath would of, and certainly not Steve Waugh or Allan Border. At the end of the day if Australia had won here they could have took all sorts of confidence from it. Broad made sure they didn't.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:54 GMT)

In this case I don't feel that the issue is so much about a batsman not walking, I feel that the issue is Stuart Broad and his reputation for poor sportsmanship. You reap what you sow and Stuart Broad has demonstrated his lack of gamesmanship throughout his career. I doubt that the controversy would be as great if it were nearly any other cricketer other than Broad.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (July 14, 2013, 14:27 GMT)

A lot of English fans are so adamant in their reactions towards Stuart Broad's "HUGE" nick to first slip. According to them, a batsman shouldn't walk even when he swats a delivery to slip when the whole world can see in broad daylight what a fat edge that was. Even Broad couldn't believe his luck. I can agree that a slim edge doesn't warrant a batsman to walk BUT Stuart Broad's edge was not a slim one, it was so obvious that even a visually challenged person would have picked it sitting somewhere in the ground. This shows the lack of morality oozing from Broad. It's an irony that his father is a ICC match referee; a reason enough for me to lose my faith in the game of cricket. If my kid wants to be inspired by a cricket player, it certainly won't be Stuart Broad. He is the reason why we have the MCC Spirit of Cricket lectures every year.

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

I have no problem with Broad not walking. I have a serious problem with Dar not giving it out. That poor decision cost Australia the match.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:55 GMT)

"But thousands of batsmen have not walked for thin nicks. Everyone of them deserves a consistent response. Or are we really now to believe that the more obvious the edge the greater the crime?"

Erm... yes. The thicker an edge the less ambiguity can exist in the batsmans mind that he did nick it.

Posted by andrew-schulz on (July 14, 2013, 13:38 GMT)

Karachi kid, get some facts right before you undertake what is essentially slander. Yes Langer has admitted he edged one that day, but I'd love to see you pointing to a ball where Gilchrist was out and given not out. I'll stand corrected if you can but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by gsingh7 on (July 14, 2013, 12:45 GMT)

@yorshire-- trott was out as no edge on hotspot, bcci refused drs since their star player dravid was wrongly given out by drs on 4 times in last england series. drs is incomplete system, biased as well. indians dont want it for these reasons.

Posted by andrew-schulz on (July 14, 2013, 11:16 GMT)

Give it a rest Chris Howard. It was a massive edge.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 9:32 GMT)

100% agree with the article, except that a cricketer was banned for breaking the spirit of cricket nor a month before. Question is will the same standards be applied to him as well.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 9:24 GMT)

nvmurthy, I totally agree with you. There are degrees of 'not walking'. From standing your ground after a bump ball, to standing your ground when you have been clean bowled with all three stumps on the ground. You are entitled to stand your ground to ALL dismissals. But the 'more out' you appear, the more dishonest and ridiculous both you and the umpire also appear.

Posted by PoundOfFlesh on (July 14, 2013, 9:18 GMT)

Why penalize Denesh Ramdin for claiming a catch he did not take under the Spirit of Game premise? What Stuart Broad did was contrary to the Spirit of Game. Should Stuart Broad not be penalized too? Shall we say 3 game suspension this time?

Posted by MaxG9 on (July 14, 2013, 9:07 GMT)

Under the rules Broad was under no compulsion to walk. I don't see why he should be vilified for not acting in the 'spirit of the game'. There are enough instances where fielders, bowlers & wicket keepers appeal for an 'out' which are obvious not outs. A point was made by an earlier comment that Broad did not seek to influence the umpire's decision in any way & this is an important point.

With regard to Michael Holdings comment about Dinesh Ramdin being fined for appealing for a catch & this being similar. He even made the point that Ramdin actually did not even appeal. But by staying passive & not dissuading his team mates that indeed he did not take the catch cleanly he was in my opinion acting against the spirit of the game as he & ONLY he would have known that.

That is not so in Broad's case where his stance was completely neutral in every way.

Posted by MaxG9 on (July 14, 2013, 8:59 GMT)

To walk or not to walk is an individual's choice & should be respected either way.

I have never been in favor of having a limit of only 2 reviews by a team in a test innings. Teams & captains have enough on their plates without worrying about when or not to review. Therefore the suggestion by 'Test is the Best' seems to be the fairest where a reasonable flow to the game will be maintained by not having unlimited or too many reviews. This was that the third umpire be given the authority to overrule the on field umpire before the next ball is bowled. He can even inform the on field umpire to stay the next ball till he checks out something he feels is 'dodgy'.

The main thing in the end is to use technology to get the best possible result & arguments such as 'it evens' out in the end' are just plain absurd because they do not take into account the CIRCUMSTANCES of a game.

Posted by KarachiKid on (July 14, 2013, 8:45 GMT)

Time to bring in technology - for such apparant howlers, third umpire should be able to talk to the on field umpire. As for not walking, its pretty common in crickets. 1999 hobard, gilly and langer were both out against pakistan when chasing 360 odd. the nick could be heard in the last and most distant row of the stadium, somehow Hair or Harper whowever it was did not hear that one. No one walked. Cook was clearly out in 2006 in two or three occasions and hair did not give him out and he stayed. All batsmen from all over the world do this. Answer is technology to get rid of such howlers.

Posted by disco_bob on (July 14, 2013, 7:28 GMT)

What I don't understand about DRS is that from first being considered to it's first implementation it was not a question of 'how' but a question of 'if', so we had years of philosophical debate about it that we did not get in say tennis for example.

Now that it has finally been implemented, I presume that it is the intransigence of the BBCI that instead of it being tweaked and debated and improved, we are instead allowing it to be used without any attempt to discuss its shortcomings and how to address them.

This to me looks like a deliberate plot by the BBCI (who hold far too much power) in order to discredit a technology that WILL eventually be employed in a much better way when finally there is discussion on how to improve the regulations by which we currently use it. For example is it really a problem to have more referrals per innings.

It is said that the umpires get it right 92%, meaning they get it wrong one in twelve times. Or say 3 per match. This is unacceptable.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 14, 2013, 7:27 GMT)

@MVRMurty, since when as this game been a gentlemans game, WG Grace once famously got bowled after a couple of deliveries, bent down put the bails back on, and took guard, as you bring up the 2011 Test series, what about Dravid not walking when he knowlingly got an edge onto pad at the oval, and it took a review to prove hed hit it.

The game is full of such incidents its just that they get reported more often and quicker with modern technology.

My personal feeling is that Broad should have walked but I also feel Trott should have refused to walk and stayed at the wicket following Erasmus poor review which shows an inside edge.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 6:39 GMT)

I am just wondering if it is ok for a bowler to appeal when he knows it wasn't lbw or the batsman didn't hit it?

Posted by jackthelad on (July 14, 2013, 6:20 GMT)

There's a fine old tradition - enshrined in the Laws of cricket - that the Umpire's decision is final (nowadays we have three rather than two, but this doesn't alter the case). If the Umpire doesn't give you "out" I see no reason why you have to give yourself out. End of story.

Posted by ImpartialExpert on (July 14, 2013, 6:16 GMT)

Hey Guys, Just to look at it from a different angle don't you think walking is showing dissent to the umpire's decision?

Posted by IndiaNumeroUno on (July 14, 2013, 6:14 GMT)

Funny how these two teams always blame others at the drop of a hat for not showing "spirit of cricket... and here we are burying the same at every opportunity. Now I understand why its called the "Ashes"...these are the ashes of the Spirit of Cricket.

Posted by ImpartialExpert on (July 14, 2013, 4:48 GMT)

As long as Broad does not complain when he is bowling and a batsman is given not out by the umpire and is later found out that it was a grave error I am OK with Broad not walking. He also should not complain when he gets out LBW after a huge inside edge. What you say that it is up to the umpire then you should stick with it. I would expect the same from any body who is supporting Broad's not walking. They should not have double standards. Even if it is last wicket of test match and your player is given out incorrectly and the match is lost because you have no right to complain if you are supporting Broad's decision. That is the responsibility you have to take. As for me I actually this Broad is alright in not walking. And if Tendulkar / Dhoni gets given out incorrectly later I have made a decision to not complain.

Posted by MVRMurty on (July 14, 2013, 4:35 GMT)

I did not see this kind of unhealthy spirit from an English player since I started following cricket. It is a very shameful act by Broad and all the English team who is supporting Broad. A few months ago the English team requested Dhoni to let Ian Bell play again, and when it came to their turn everyone is talking about Umpire's decision.

If you respect the game then you dedicate your wicket at any circumstance like this. This is a GENTLEMAN'S Game. From Alistar cook to Broad and so the called great Kevin Pieterson should be ashamed of their comments with regards to this sinful act by Broad.

I am very surprised that the Aussies didnt blame Broad. Why to have DRS, SNICKOMETER and all the technology when the players themselves are not playing with any spirit. It is s shameful act by Broad.

Posted by nvmurthy on (July 14, 2013, 3:55 GMT)

It is truly amazing how much justification is required to rationalize a behavior that even the author acknowledges as "dishonest". Difference between a thin edge and a thick edge? simple and has to do with obviousness or a better confidence in that the ball in fact has struck the bat and the batsman knows it. In the case of an extremely thin edge, or as in the case of Clarke, if there is an amount of uncertainty, it is perfectly fine to let the umpire make the decision. In a case when the batsman knows his is out, not walking is dishonest.. if this cannot be followed forget all things about "spirit of Cricket". "Gentleman's game" etc. which are supposed to imply a level of honesty.

Posted by humdrum on (July 14, 2013, 3:42 GMT)

Fair take David. However, if English players (and match referees) are educated to have consistent standards against all opposition( home and away) it will have the salutary effect of convincing all cricket lovers(and non lovers) that there is no room for hypocrisy.

Posted by Mitty2 on (July 14, 2013, 3:33 GMT)

Well a good article on the surface Hopps, however, I think there's a few flaws. First off, after not having walked myself on atleast one certain occasion a few years back, I can certainly state that not one of these guidelines went through my head... Not least did I pertain to the "Simple Model for Ration Crime". The decision is personal, yes, but it is incredibly spontaneous. That feeling of getting out simply outweighs (is better than) the adverse - or "dishonest" - affects of not walking. Nothing more, nothing less.

The other point on the claiming of a false catch and non-walking being dissimilar and incomparable I have to disagree with. Both are 'dishonest', both are non-legitamate attempts to gain an upper hand, and both are done in the intention of either depriving of or taking a wicket. They are both the same, just different menthods of doing it. The difference is though, that there's more precedent and history behind not walking, but that doesn't make it any less worse.

Posted by Chris_Howard on (July 14, 2013, 1:55 GMT)

And vi) A batsmen, e.g. Trott, doesn't have the liberty of staying put when given out wrongly.

Regards "..because his edge was so apparent." It was reasonably fine, but was exaggerated by the deflection off Haddin's gloves. Obviously Dar hadn't seen any deviation until it hit Haddin's gloves, so I don't think it was that apparent.

Posted by amir_nirvana on (July 14, 2013, 1:46 GMT)

I fail to see how people can defend him and his actions. Everyone knows it was dishonest and yet they are merely trying to brush it off as "the norm these days". I for one will continue to believe that he should have walked. This is such a shame!

Posted by MartinC on (July 14, 2013, 0:44 GMT)

I'm at a loss to understand the fuss about this. With very very rare exceptions professional cricketers don't walk. Aussies especially.

As a young player in League cricket in Lancashire I was once given a real rocket by our Aussie pro - and ex test player - for walking. It's your job to bat and the umpires job to make a decision was the gist of what he said, with a bit of swearing added in. Don't ever do it again he said and I didn't.

Broad did his job but the umpire did not do his. So blame the umpire not Broad.

Posted by landl47 on (July 14, 2013, 0:29 GMT)

Michael Clarke today not only didn't walk, he asked for a review in the (vain) hope that the technology might not have caught the faint edge (anyone who has played cricket will know that his excuse that he didn't know whether he had hit it is baloney- the batsman ALWAYS knows when he has hit it). I don't condemn Clarke for that, nor do I condemn Broad. It's the umpire's job to give decisions, not the players. All I ask is that the players accept the decision, whether they agree with it or not, as a decision made by umpires doing the best they can and don't show dissent.

Posted by disco_bob on (July 13, 2013, 22:47 GMT)

The difference is that as Clarke's feather showed there is an acceptable grey area with a nick. Clearly Broad's was not even close to the grey area but where do you draw the line?

Posted by chitti_cricket on (July 13, 2013, 22:14 GMT)

There are lots of decissions by umpires that went wrong in cricket, in past,that cost matches and series also infact. But now the technology is available. The protocal must be changed now, becuase we have technology that can be used to minimize the human errors. Like if an eronious decission is made by on field empire then the third empire has to involve and give his decision quitely to the ear of on field umpire. In this whole case and many many on field umpiring errors, the ego of on field unpires has cuased much problem, if they were not certain of the issue then why the hell they contact thrid one and ask him to use technology, that should be allowed. Current DRS system should be continued and should allow each side use three reviews. ICC should chime in now.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 21:59 GMT)

Aleem dar is the best umpire in the world. but i want to give suggestion to ICC regarding caught behind or any edge, if umpire is in doubt, he should be facilitated to consult with 3rd umpire.

Posted by mk49_van on (July 13, 2013, 21:36 GMT)

To expect Stuart Broad - a player with a history of rude behavior and the on-field demeanor of a petulant teenager to walk -- is to ask for a lot.

The episode reveals that the current design of the DRS does not catch some of the most egregious umpiring errors -- even those that determine the course of a match. If an umpire is obviously wrong decisions should be overturned whether or not the opposing team has any appeals left. N'est ce pas?

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

I don't feel strongly either way on this - my only puzzlement is why a fielder or wkeeper claiming a catch that bounced is treated so differently. I don't know whether Ramdin definitely knew the ball had bounced a month or two back - but HE was suspended for a couple of games for unsportsmanlike conduct - why the major difference?

Posted by tests_the_best on (July 13, 2013, 21:01 GMT)

As for some comments bemoaning lack of fair spirit and cricket not being a gentleman's game any more, that situation existed even before this incident and that's the REAL tragedy that exists today that most intl cricketers care more for winning than upholding fair spirit. Broad is merely the symptom or general example of that kind of mentality and singling him out would look quite unfair.

Also agree with @citizenkc. If Broad or anyone else walks in such situations, it comes across as the right thing, upholding the spirit. But if he doesn't, he hasn't done anything wrong. Leave it at that.

Posted by bobletham on (July 13, 2013, 21:00 GMT)

It is universally considered to be wrong, and is contrary to the Laws of Cricket, if a batsman were to refuse to leave the wicket when given out by the umpire when he should have been given not out.

Apart from other considerations this would be an affront to the authority of the umpire, upon which the integrity of the game depends.

It appears to follow that it is wrong for a batsman to leave the wicket when given not out when he should have been given out.

Again, this would undermine the authority of the umpire.

The fact that technology displays the fallibility of the umpire's decision is incidental to the role of the batsman. An appeal, and its consideration, belongs to the province of the umpire, not the batsman.

The argument that Broad was cheating fails. When a fielder claims a catch wrongfully he attempts to coerce the umpire into a false decision. Broad did no such thing. The transaction occurred between the fielding side and the umpire alone.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 20:54 GMT)

In every single game of cricket bowlers appeal for wickets that are clearly inside edges / missing the stumps etc. If these are given out through umpire error no one ever questions the bowler for appealing unjustly. The amount of times batsmen are given out incorrectly compared to batsmen not walking is a lot higher. Everything evens its self out in the end.

Posted by Sarfin on (July 13, 2013, 20:25 GMT)

Broad took the advantage of umpire's mistake. We understand that. But can it be justified? NO. Period. I can remember Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss went to the Indian dressing room for the sake of the spirit of the game. The same Andy Flower is still in the charge of the English dressing room and I don't see how they are lifting the spirit now. What Broad did was well within the laws but morally not acceptable. Please do not waste your time to justify it.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 20:17 GMT)

The fact is that Broad knew he was out and choose not the do the right thing. As a role model to young cricketers this is appalling. Claiming that Aussies rarely walk or that its up to the umpire is a cop out, especially now there is more definitive technology available to show fans what really happened. The Australians have shown plenty of dignity in not making a fuss about it, but the fact remains it is not in the spirit of the game. Something the English are always keen to harp on about. If this piece of bad sportsmanship is the reason England wins this test, and at the moment it could be, what sort of message is that showing youngsters? Win if you can, lose if you have to, but always cheat? I believe this quote is more appropriate "for when the great scorer comes to mark beside our name, it matter not if you win or lose, its how you played the game." That said it would be fitting if Australia get the runs and win.

Posted by GhostJardine on (July 13, 2013, 20:15 GMT)

The author is extremely confused about a couple of fundamental issues. An honour code about walking or claiming false catches was not enforcable morally (let alone legally) until recently, because the technology to show a player as being dishonest "beyond a reasonable doubt" did not exist. Now that TV replays can catch someone with his hand in the cookie jar, the question is what new norms should be put in place. It applies to both walking and claiming catches - in fact, it is more pertinent for nicks because technology detects them more surely than it does bump catches. Tradition is not an argument - before modern technology, it was traditional that batsmen couldn't appeal an lbw decision! Rules change with technology; there's no reason why norms shouldn't either.

Gary Becker's analysis attempts to predict human behaviour, not give it moral endorsement. Equating what is rational (from the self interest perspective) with what is moral is called the natuiralistic fallacy.

Posted by tests_the_best on (July 13, 2013, 20:08 GMT)

I think there are 2 very compelling reasons why Broad can be excused for not walking:

1. As pointed out, batsmen often are given out incorrectly so in some sense these kind of decisions even things out. 2. Even more important and notwithstanding the evening out aspect, why would a batsman walk when the general culture in international cricket is that very few batsmen walk when they know it's out? Broad would have looked really guilty if most cricketers walked while he didn't. Far from the case.

The real issue in this incident is 1. Incompetency of an elite panel umpire to see such a clear edge. 2. Injudicious use of referrals by Aus team/captain. 3. As suggested by some, maybe third umpire should be given authority to overturn such decisions without need for reviews.

What if Broad had walked and through the course of the series there were incidents of oppn players not walking? He would have actually looked foolish for walking! Fair play only makes sense when most players are fair.

Posted by TenDonebyaShooter on (July 13, 2013, 19:55 GMT)

Mr Hopps seems curiously reluctant to see the bigger picture in this article. During the 2005 Ashes series, cricket was praised as a sport by people who knew nothing about the game on account of the fine spirit displayed by some of its leading players, the example of Flintoff consoling Lee at Edgbaston being an obvious one. It was suggested that the footballers could learn something from cricketers. Move on eight years, and Broad is practically as pivotal a player, and likely soon to join Flintoff and Botham as the only three Englishmen to have achieved the double of 2000 runs and 200 wickets in tests. Broad's behaviour is as likely to define this series as Flintoff's. It seems on current evidence that cricketers are now a breed who need to learn from the examples of other professional sportspeople, not the opposite.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 19:37 GMT)

I think it is more of umpire's fault than Stuart Broad. His team was under pressure and needed someone on the crease but at the same time if we look this matter on moral grounds Broad should have walked away.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 19:34 GMT)

I remember the one incident in India Vs Ozz game on 2007/08 where symonds got clear edge to keeper on ishanth ball but Umpire Bukner didnt give him out neither he didn't walk after that he scored 100 and rescued the team and india lost though!! In cricket we can't expect players to be walk out when umpire didn't give out but why Umpire didn't notice the clear edge.. it's b'coz he wanted to lose ozz or he wanted to save Eng!!! When Eng came India last time in the 1st test Cook got clear LBW on Ohja ball pitching middle and hitting middle stump but the same umpire Aleem dar didn't give out!!! So if ICC want to use DRS use it fully but don't give two chance for sack of using DRS in cricket. Either use or leave to on field umpire!! In Trott incident the same thing happened!! I accept BCCI for not opting DRS!!!

Posted by johnstanley on (July 13, 2013, 19:32 GMT)

It is baffling that this article is trying to justify what is wrong. In the article David Hopps says that Broad should not have walked because there was an Ashes Test to win - in other words winning was very important and at any cost. I doubt that Broad had all the time to do the thinking/reasoning that David Hopps has suggested. Either he walked because he has high moral & ethical standards and would have done it instinctively and this was above winning or did not walk because winning was more important than honesty & ethics. The fact that David Hopps is trying to excuse and justify this behavior is precisely what is going wrong in this world today. It is not just about Broad but broader issue (no pun intended). Lets set an example that cricketers must do the right thing. Umpire certainly made a mistake but Broad compounded it.

Posted by delta20 on (July 13, 2013, 18:59 GMT)

I don't know anything else.. Brian Lara, Adam Gilchrist and even Sachin Tendulkar are remembered not only for their batting capabilities but also their habit of walking whey they knew they were out. Period!

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 18:46 GMT)

Is this not cheating? If yes, then why is it being justified? No one else walks in professional cricket, eh?! So is that what stops Broad from walking?! Appalling!

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 18:42 GMT)

I didn't see the incident but I think the excuses being put up for S.Broad by the original article is pretty lame. In the heat of the moment we know that sportsmen will do whatever it takes to win. But I think that it will be proven again that there exists a lot of double standards in the ICC. The Ramdin incident is still a sticking point for me in the concluded CT. The ball was edged, Ramdin caught the ball initially and then in the haste of celebration, the ball came out. The UMPIRE after hearing/seeing the edge and the initial catch GAVE THE BATSMAN OUT. Mishah was almost halfway back. You expect DR to call the bastman back/imform the umpire(when was the last time that happened) and DR was branded a cheat but when the shoe is on the other foot all we hear of is excuses and reason's why SB shouln't walk. If one is bad, then both are bad. Stop with the excuses already and double standards! Will SB be given a ban? Prove me wrong ICC. MY point? if DR can be banned then so can SB.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 18:38 GMT)

what is the fuss all about?????? the fault or we should say error lies with the umpire,the decision to give out or not out is his.stuart broad was within his wright to stay at the crease....

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 18:28 GMT)

Broad is not a victim, if any, cricket is the victom.

With technology available, the third referee should have the power to call the umpire and ask him to overturn decision in cases like this.

Let each team have only one review per innings, but let the third referee control the decisions. Whenever he knows a blatant incorrect decision has been made, he should call the umpire to reverse it.

Posted by Nutcutlet on (July 13, 2013, 18:27 GMT)

On odd occasions cricket backs itself into a corner where the game, or the conduct of it, looks absurd, looks to provide ready ammunition for its most contemptous critics. Dickie Bird stopping play with sunlight being reflected off the neighbouring B&Q roof; rain-affected ODI matches & the recalculations before D/L etc, Stamford's intrusion, ad nauseam & here, an instance where the whole world could see that Broad was out (including the off-field ump, I'm sure) but Aleem Dar had suffered a moment of temporary blindness, or his attention wasn't on the job, yet he (Erasmus) couldn't get in Dar's ear. It's not in the regs. End of. So - time for evolution. Revised regs, July 2013 edition. The ICC needs to sit down asap & thrash this one out. India may choose to abstain, but the rest can agree that if the umpires also comprise a 3rd team & team members speak to one another if the word *team* means anything at all. Then Broad won't have the opportunity to transgress the spirit of the game.

Posted by zalmaypk on (July 13, 2013, 18:26 GMT)

its not good as pakistan was also suffered from the australian england, indian and west indian empires so many times...like hobart test in 1999,delhi test in 1998 west indies test in 2000,and recently in south africa as well which cost Pakistan lost the series badly,,,,so its part of the game,,,not criticism

Posted by Muscateer on (July 13, 2013, 18:24 GMT)

When the UK Editor of Cricinfo begins to condone what was apparently a disgraceful episode in modern cricket, it begs the question - where does the buck stop at cheating? This was as bad as any I have ever witnessed. Forget about the fact that Broad is a spoiled brat, which he is. Forget about the fact that others have done bad things too. This is a specific instance in the land that spawned cricket , for heavens sake! For an Englishman to say that this is OK, is horrendous. Can kids and adults who love this game passionately ever accept that Broad's cowardly action was condonable? Definitely not. take a close look at what you are implying Mr. Editor. This is wrong. totally despicable. And no amount of blarney will wipe the stain that Broad has inflicted on this magnificent game. I am disgusted.

Posted by vaithi316 on (July 13, 2013, 18:19 GMT)

Wrong place, wrong time, wrong call. Absolutely disagree with david hopps. As with holding if ramdin can be punished why not broad. BROAD IS NOT BROAD MINDED. He could have played in the spirit of the game. Aussies would have a got a score around 250. Which is a par score. Broad made it for england exactly. He will be remembered not with english victory but on field actions. Cricket fans all over the world watch ashes not for the rivalry alone but much more disciplined performance.

Posted by RaadQ on (July 13, 2013, 18:17 GMT)

So much focus on the howler & broad not walking. Why are people not focusing on the fact that Clarke has consistently failed to use the DRS appropriately, and when its actually needed its used up by then! The DRS is meant FOR HOWLERS, not for "oh maybe, lets try to get lucky and maybe sneak in a wicket". This isn't the fast time Clarke's failure to use DRS has cost Australia (i remember it costing warner last year). Captains should use DRS when they are 80% or more sure, not when their bowlers are failing to get wickets and hoping to catch a lucky break. If DRS was used properly, Clarke would have used it then, not before, the decision would have been overruled, the situation would have been put to bed. Simple.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 13, 2013, 18:12 GMT)

@mudders batsmen nearly always know when they get an outside edge, even fine ones. In fact those are harder for the umpire to spot so if batsmen should walk, that would easily be the best time to do it. If what we're worried about is the spirit of the game, that is, instead of whatever argument best benefits your own team at any given time. .

Posted by kitugar on (July 13, 2013, 18:05 GMT)

Mr Hopps, I am a cricket lover and a follower and it makes me sad to see the low moral standards the player have these days. Of course there are rules and it was a poor umpiring decision as well but when a player doesn't walk away on an obvious edge it does take away something from the spirit of game from people who love to watch a fair honest match. It was circumstances may be but it was low moral standard of the player as well. Board and some others are just representing the current generation of cricketer where winning is all that matters and moral take backseat. Great model for the new generation.

Posted by Solid_Snake on (July 13, 2013, 18:00 GMT)

@Punjabi munda->Ramdin scene was something else..I cannot believe it.People are still comparing it with walking..Ramdin dropped the catch..& btw there is nothing as 'he was unsure'.This unsure thing comes when 3rd umpire looks again & again at the video.That dropped catch was something else..One glance at the video & whole world saw that the catch was well dropped.After that Ramdin looked down towards the ball,knowingly well that he has dropped the catch he still kept on pressurizing the umpire by appealing.Was Broad begging like Ramdin & asking the umpire that 'ohh umpire i am not out please dont give me out'?Broad did nothing like that.It's his right to stay there until umpire makes his decision.If all start walking then what's the use of umpire there?

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 17:58 GMT)

This issue is similar to the mankading issue. If that is against the spirit of cricket, then this is also against the spirit of the cricket. U cannot defend the indefensible.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 17:58 GMT)

This article is absolutely right - any cost benefit analysis would lead to the outcome that there is no punishment for Broad. Broad didn't walk - which is sensible. Should he have walked? No. There are plenty of instances where Australians haven't walked. But it reveals that the system needs to change. The answer is very simple - suspend players who don't walk when no benefit of the doubt can be given to them.

Posted by Rally_Windies on (July 13, 2013, 17:50 GMT)

what is the big deal?

Riki Pointing was fined and disciplined by CA....

his offence was "walking" .....

CA has a policy to discipline any Oz batsman who walks before the umpire raises his finger ....

British Media should do some history research before they start "moralizing" ...

Posted by mudders on (July 13, 2013, 17:48 GMT)

To paint that incident simply as an issue of 'not walking' is misleading. This was different to most situations where a batsman snicks and doesn't walk at Broad hit the cover off the thing. Broad was quite rightfully embarrassed that he stuck around and he deserves any condemnation that he gets.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 17:47 GMT)

lol,i wonder whts ppls opinion for mankading ? even its legally out umpire talk to bowling side captain to make it "spirit of cricket" . So y not players cant do it ? especially like this incident (except the umpire ,everyone know its out ) ? this is clearly double stranded to maintain "spirit of cricket "

Posted by Chinmayan on (July 13, 2013, 17:40 GMT)

Why are we so unfair to Broad? He has put his reputation at risk for the sake of the team. Even if England wins this came, people will forget it with time. But they will remember what Broad has done forever. Are we expecting too much from Champion teams, to behave like gentlemen beyond rules?

Posted by applethief on (July 13, 2013, 17:38 GMT)

A properly English take on this issue, to use convention and tradition to justify a poor system. To claim that over time bad decisions even out can only be made by someone who doesn't follow teams other than England or Australia, and incomprehensible to followers of other teams. And the attempt to differentiate this from claiming grassed catches is made without basis at all. Weak , weak argument.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 17:37 GMT)

I think icc set wrong predicament. By fining ramdin when he was unsure about the catch. I want broad to be banned for a test but its upto icc now. Moralising broad, s decision that all do this does not make it more palatable.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 17:36 GMT)

this is not bad as theary hendry's hand ball goal against ireland.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 17:33 GMT)

The key reason for comparing this with the Ramdin case is that he didn't appeal, he just failed to inform anyone that he hadn't caught it. All this talk of people walking in the past ignores those who didn't, and those who do now. A few years ago I saw Sangakkara walk for an edge that they couldn't pick up on the available technology. I think the key point is in the seventh paragraph; historically walking was impossible to police, now it is. Many of the DRS reviews could be eliminated by putting the onus on the players to tell the truth, if they caught it or edged it (either for catches or LBW). Bans and fines for dishonest players should lead to generally correct decisions. This could also lead to a trickle down to lower levels of the game.

Posted by dailycric on (July 13, 2013, 17:32 GMT)

The closest parallel I can remember to this was Steve Bucknor giving Andrew Symonds not out in the infamous 2008 Sydney Test v India, in spite of Symonds deflecting the ball of his hips to Dhoni with the full face of the bat. Symonds went on to play a match-winnings innings. Lots of ire, but it was all directed at Bucknor, not at Symonds. So why the difference here? Quite simply, because Broad is the most spoilt, petulant, entitled and churlish cricketer in contemporary cricket, one who constantly gets away with acts of boorishness far worse than what others are punished or fined for. The question here is not about walking or not walking. Even Rahul Dravid didn't walk. The question is about *who* is doing the not walking. There is something about Stuart Broad getting away with murder that leaves an especially bad taste in the mouth. True, the Aussies wouldn't have walked either. But there is no Aussie as unlikeable as Broad.

Posted by Nickoshot on (July 13, 2013, 17:27 GMT)

I have to say if I were in Boards shoes I wouldn't have walked, I would probably have looked so guilty the umpire would have given it out but I wouldn't have walked. not a nice situation Walk and feel guilty to my teammates for letting them down or stay and feel guilty on moral grounds. Think I would sleep easier knowing I had done the best for the team.

Australia wasted there review which are suppose to be for clear mistakes, Clark should consider that before using both reviews on gambles.

Posted by czar2008 on (July 13, 2013, 17:22 GMT)

Remind me how is this - the gentleman's game?. Surely tennis should be.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 17:16 GMT)

@Zeko: I have been corrected.. Ramdeen did not appeal... that changes my perspective about the ICC decision... but still argue that Bowlers should be also held in contempt if they knowingly and wrongfully appeal

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 17:14 GMT)

All said and done not just for Broad but for all who do the same. I am not in favour of anyone who do the wrong thing regardless of who they play for. If you know your out then you walk. Regardless of the position your team is in. Just like technology helps Umpires get it right then the players have a right to do so also. I for one prefer to lose or win cleanly rather than ponder what if I hadn't cheated. This type of behaviour will continue but I feel it robs the players of the chance to dig deep and persevere from tricky situations with pure desire and determination and without any controversy.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 16:56 GMT)

The technology is there to prevent howlers. This was a howler and the fact that it happened is a problem that the ICC should deal with.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 16:52 GMT)

@Zeko: the difference between Ramdeen and Broad is that former appealed for dismissal, which was knowingly and wrongfully.... Broad also knew but he was not appealing but an appeal was made against him... he did not do anything that tantamount to cheating... hence, ICC can not punish him... no matter how distasteful Broad's incident looks like, tell me how many times bowlers have shown remorse for wrongful but successful appeals (knowingly)

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 16:50 GMT)

Hate to say this. But this article is another example to say that. "symbol of cricket's moral decline". I just remembered what Sidath Wettamuniy the guy who scored a fabulous 190 at Lord's once said. "I used to walk all my life. Otherwise how can you look at the bowler in the eye after that match?". Things have really changed. May not only cricket the whole social systems have changed. But unfortunately I still walk out when I get an edge in Division III cricket. Poor me.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 16:44 GMT)

You can possibly say that it was against the spirit of the game..but what he does was a simple method of 'cost-benefit analysis', where 'cost' was to walk and 'benefit'' was to stay on the field & he found benefit> cost..and so he stayed..moreover we all can relate it to- "all illegal acts are immoral ones while the vice-versa is not true".

Posted by sarangraj on (July 13, 2013, 16:43 GMT)

its funny how aussies r tlkng dat broad shud hve wlked..apart from gilly I dnt remebr ny aussie has ever wlked.. I remembr RICKY PONTING even after edging to first slip used to stnad his ground..

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 16:41 GMT)

I accept what Citizenkc says. It would have been a glorious thing. But you don;t condemn people for not doing the normal, routine thing

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 16:35 GMT)

@citizenkc. Well put! Couldn't have expressed better!

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 16:26 GMT)

There are times when a batsman can edge a ball and is not sure about it but in broad's case it was clearly out and he should have walked. I have no idea how Aleem Dar missed it. If someone can be punished for claiming a catch he knew he didn't take why not punish a batsman for not walking when he's absolutely sure that he is out. ICC started a serious case with Denish Ramdin

Posted by shripadk on (July 13, 2013, 16:20 GMT)

I think it is fine not to walk, but there is nothing wrong done by media and other critics when they criticise Broad as well. He should be ready to face the backlash when he decides to stand the ground with such blatant edge seen by millions live on TV. And I think this should be encouraged. I say keep showing that replay live on TV and on the big screens on ground. Like Harsha Bhogle said, players should be shown up like that when they don't walk. ICC fines fielders for claiming bad catch, cricket boards judge behaviour of cricketer on twitter which is something that did not happen on the field and ban them from playing cricket, then why shouldn't players who know they are out but don't wank should not be judged by public and media? I say, loop the damn nick on stadium every now and then till player actually gets out.

Things like this does bring sport into disrepute. Media moralising Broad for this is not even slap on the wrist.

Posted by heathrf1974 on (July 13, 2013, 16:17 GMT)

I didn't mind he didn't walk. The umpire made the error.

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

With all the furore about Stuart Broad not walking, did anyone notice that Jonny Bairstow did walk?

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 15:59 GMT)

I bevel that game must be played in the best spirit regardless of the circumstances. Defending broad because match was at a crucial juncture is just like claiming a bounced catch in the world cup final. Point is that if claiming a catch is against the spirit and players get banned for it why not broad. This way we can set an example to ther youngsters and they can take spirit of game more seriously.

Posted by ahmedabbasi69 on (July 13, 2013, 15:49 GMT)

Its quite a funny situation. I do not want to get into a debate whether Broad was right or not. Its just the matter that ICC needs to look into, to walk off when you know you are out is a gentlemen's gesture. But I believe that Its not a gentlemen's game any more. Its just simple, the balance needs to be maintained between bat and ball.No one would want to see dishearten and dejected bowlers appealing for a bowled or a caught and bowled.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 15:49 GMT)

The issue is not that Broad was dishonest, or that he didn't walk when out. There is history to that, he was well within the rules and umpires have a job to do. Aleem Dar was the person paid to make the correct call, Broad is the person paid to play for his team. Neither is it that Australians (barring Gilchrist) have been beacons of honesty either. Would do well to remember their captain was the one who triggered 'Sydney-gate' by claiming a distinctly contentious catch. But the technology/ rules must allow TV umpires to overrule such calls to make it fair. And England should stop complaining about Trott's dismissal as well. Most of all, their supporters need to remember all this when Bell ambles out next time, and Dhoni does NOT recall him.

Posted by Ninety9 on (July 13, 2013, 15:48 GMT)

The author fails to note that Dinesh Ramdin did not claim the catch. He simply did not inform his teammates or the umpires of the fact that he had dropped the catch. Stuart Broad's situation is essentially the same. He knew he had edged it, but he didn't do anything about it. It's wrong for the author to try and justify Broad's actions by claiming it to be a convention or tradition. If this is a tradition then it has to and should change as it is a dishonest one. If this means changing the protocols to make better use of the available technology, then so be it.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 15:39 GMT)

Fallacy of this comparison is that Ramdin never appealed nor claim the catch.The umpire ruled and all you folks are invited to look at Mikey Holding Skysport review of these 2 incidents.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 15:33 GMT)

How is it even broads fault ? Drs was bought in for the howler not for all the 50,50 calls if they had of not used them then it wudnt be a issue . Drs should go down to just 1 in tests then it would be used only for the howler .

Posted by lefty84 on (July 13, 2013, 15:25 GMT)

Sir, It can be accepted that Broad simply did what most of the batsmen do these days but I respectfully disagree when you state that it cannot be compared with claiming a catch on the bounce.The argument that things even out is not appropriate in this juncture. The real question is when the batsmen can be given the benefit of doubt when he stands ground thinking that he hadn't nicked it, the same benefit of doubt should be given to the fielder/keeper who may have thought that he caught it cleanly. Period.

If we decide to clean up the game lets do so from all aspects of it and not just fielding selectively. Or even better - lets strike out the words spirit of the game from MCC books and accept the fact that all players can connive and it's upto umpires and technology to find them out.

On a side note - it's really ironical to note that Dinesh Ramdin was handed out a ban/suspension for bringing disrepute to the spirit of the game by Chris Broad. Lesser said the better.

Posted by The_other_side on (July 13, 2013, 15:11 GMT)

What Broad did is definitely condemnable. Because no reasonable parent will teach his son to be immoral. Broad did something very blatant. What if some one played to gully and gets away with it.

Australia do the same and do not walk. Unfortunately as David Hopps put it Broad has to face the negative backlash.

If ECB approves this it should have no standing on fixing issue. Because there is no small moral and big moral.

I think ICC and ECB should condemn what has happened and make changes in rules to avoid such furhter mishaps!!

Posted by Caribbean_Man on (July 13, 2013, 15:06 GMT)

we may and can debate any topic, even those that are morally wrong. A fluid and well versed debater may win the debate that that the sky is not blue or the sun does not rise in the east or the spirit of the game has been abused for half a century.

Yet this spirit of the game was referenced not even a fortnight ago to punish and hold up for scorn, a WIndian keeper.

A keeper who 'stood his ground' and allowed the umpire to make his decision.

A law for Persians and not for the Medes?

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 15:02 GMT)

Tradition,if it is not within the spirit of the game needs to be wiped out.It is only a tradition after all.Not walking is such a tradition.We know fully well that players are not going to walk on their own - so this should be enforced by taking tech's help.

Posted by ObjectiveCricketism on (July 13, 2013, 14:53 GMT)

A very good article David. Full marks to you and Venkat.

Posted by 51n15t9r on (July 13, 2013, 14:50 GMT)

No problem with Broad not walking. Aussies would have done the same. Only expect ICC to apply the same law about 'spirit of the game' that they applied to Ramdin .. why should a fielder be held to a different set of ethical standards than a batsman ?

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
David HoppsClose
David Hopps David Hopps joined ESPNcricinfo as UK editor early in 2012. For the previous 20 years he was a senior cricket writer for the Guardian and covered England extensively during that time in all Test-playing nations. He also covered four Olympic Games and has written several cricket books, including collections of cricket quotations. He has been an avid amateur cricketer since he was 12, and so knows the pain of repeated failure only too well. The pile of untouched novels he plans to read, but rarely gets around to, is now almost touching the ceiling. He divides his time between the ESPNcricinfo office in Hammersmith and his beloved Yorkshire.

    The man who pulled New Zealand from the precipice

Brendon McCullum's runs and leadership have rescued New Zealand cricket from its lowest ebb. By Andrew Alderson

'In front or behind the stumps, he was out there for a battle'

Modern Masters: Rahul Dravid and Sanjay Manjrekar discuss Adam Gilchrist's temperament

Glovemen apart

From eccentrics to game changers and now to leaders, where will - or won't - wicketkeepers go next? By Jon Hotten
Download the app: for iPads | for Android tablets

    A rock, a hard place and the WICB

Tony Cozier: The board must deal with the striking players practically if it wants any resolution to the embarrassing crisis

Flirtations with Jesse

Beige Brigade: The boys discuss if Ryder can stay good for the summer, the West Indies pullout, and the Alternative Cricket Commentary's return

News | Features Last 7 days

The insecure kid who never grew up

Kevin Pietersen missed the point of life in the second half of his career, failed to show maturity, and has regressed to being the bitter youngster who left Natal years ago

India's other keeper stumped again

Throughout his career, Wriddhiman Saha has suffered from being in the same generation as MS Dhoni. However, those close to the player believe that Saha has never been one to take rejection personally

Kohli back to old habits

Stats highlights from the fourth ODI between India and West Indies in Dharamsala

A rock, a hard place and the WICB

The board's latest standoff with its players has had embarrassing consequences internationally, so any resolution now needs to be approached thoughtfully

Highest ODI averages, and Leap Year babies

Also, fewest boundaries in a T20 innings, most runs in a Test, England's international record-holder, and a pest named Fruitfly

News | Features Last 7 days