Take sides on the hot topics of the day

ODI cricket

July 12, 2013

Should Stuart Broad have walked?


It was a blatant nick and everyone in the ground, except Aleem Dar, knew he'd edged it. It wasn't very sportsman-like to stand his ground.


Walking is a personal choice, and has nothing to do with how blatantly 'out' it actually was. Australia had only themselves to blame since they were out of reviews.


© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

. Your ESPN name '' will be used to display your comments. Please click here to edit this.
Comments have now been closed for this article

July 17, 2013, 15:38 GMT


Broad had some gumption and his decision and Aleem Dar's mistake likely led to England winning a match that was poised on a razor's edge. How can that possibly be declared 'just part of the game' by anyone? It's unfair, nasty and no one should be rewarded for it. If the shoe had been on an English foot, the English press would have crucified the Australians. But we all know the English press has a double standard miles wide. Yes, unless you're Gilchrist, an Aussie only walks when he's run out of petrol. But if you can say that with a straight face, what does that make an Englishman who doesn't walk? Certainly not a hero in my book. Two wrongs do not make a right. Honesty demands you walk when you know you're out. If you're not sure, stand your ground. But an edge like that doesn't fall into the 'leave it up to the tech' argument. And if you think it does, I hope you're ready to be as magnaminous the next time your team loses to such a situation.

July 16, 2013, 7:26 GMT


Some time before , Alim Dar made same sort of mistake and Ojha of India did not walk away , in fact he was about to walk but then he returned to crease , in test series in India

July 16, 2013, 4:56 GMT


Not bothered about Broad's decision, If the same have been a Aussie player then the entire scenario would have been changed....I appreciate Clarke's decision for not commenting on the controversial dismissal......whatever the win England is celebrating is a Dummy One....

July 16, 2013, 1:52 GMT


It is absolutely correct decision the he is out and he also visibly understood it. Then why the fun in waiting for the Umpire's decision. There is no right for him to wait for Umpire's nod. When he is out he must quit the crease. Continuing and staying and waiting for somebody else's recommendation is ridiculous. Broad should be broad enough and should not be narrow and mischievous. He must be penalized for such action

July 15, 2013, 19:33 GMT


Well if you think in the heat of moment that A) The Ashes is on line B)Australians on other side who are not known as walkers(excption: Gilchrist) you may give him benefit of doubt.But on terms like sportsmanship,spirit of cricket it is a let down.It sets a bad blood to start of series and on longer note it will only encourage young cricketers to not walk even when they know by heart that "man I nicked that"

July 15, 2013, 11:16 GMT


Ideally speaking he should have walked. What he has done was not spirit of the game. And I don't' know why ICC not changing the rules. When fielder made a mistake they will get fine in some way. But why not the same rule apply for batsmen.

This year CT 2013 WI vs PAK match Denesh ramdin claimed a catch though he dropped the ball after he caught as a result ICC banned him for two matches. So in same way If batsmen know that the ball edged his bat he has to walk off from crease. If he failed to do so ICC will have to take some action not immediately but at least after that match.

July 15, 2013, 9:25 GMT


Should have walked!!No question about that especially when it is so abvious!!else you should stop saying that this is a gentleman's game.Ther were instances where the third umpire stepped in even though the onfield umpires made a wrong decision way before DRS was introduced and it should have happened in this test.

July 14, 2013, 14:57 GMT


This was once referred to as the gentleman's game. England the progenitors of the game should lead the way in that respect. England once stood for all that was fair in the game and I was beginning to like and respect this team for their rise in modern day cricket. However this latest incident has left me disappointed and disillusioned by this modern crop of English cricketers. Let's hope Australia moves from strength to strength and crushes these POMs.

July 14, 2013, 8:49 GMT


If we all are going to judge the honesty or the character of a man by him walking to an obvious edge or not then that is absolutely not FAIR on him. The Human error of a bowler bowling a wide or a no ball and the human error of a batsman missing a straight one and getting bowled and the human error of an umpire not seeing or hearing a thick edge is ALL part of the game. That is what constitute a whole cricket match. So lets stop making a controversy out of nothing.

July 14, 2013, 8:47 GMT


Wrong decision by Stuart.

July 14, 2013, 7:46 GMT


I'd like to know why the third umpire cant step in? For example, lets say Darr had given him out but on the replay it had shown the bowler had overstepped. The third umpire would chip in and say not out. in effect a free referral for the batting team. This is a stupid rule anyway but that's by the by. In this case why couldn't the third umpire step in here and point out the huge error?

July 13, 2013, 21:32 GMT


He should have walked. But at the same time he has the right to wait for the umpires decision and if the umpire messes it up like he did on this occasion then he does as unfair as it is to continue his innings. However it would have been nice in the interests of fair play and good sportsmanship to walk. Walking would also show that he has a healthy respect for the etiquette in cricket or in sport in general if such a thing exists. After all sport is a form of warfare and they are not playing for tiddlywinks out there. They are playing for the Ashes, which mean so much to millions of Australians.Their country's identity was forged solely on the fact they beat England on a regular basis. As Australia unlike the Americans never fought a war of independence against England.The Ashes also means a lot to England too although in obviously a different way. So given all these factors its not surprising Stuart Broad did not walk.Its a tough battle out there.Would have been nice if Broad walked.

July 13, 2013, 15:50 GMT


Yes, Broad should have walked!! In such kind of decision any batsmen should have walked, a paper thin edge or unclear catch or lbw decisions should be left to umpire but in such cases, batsmen should set good example for the next generation watching matches!! All said and done, this is not a separate case and Broad should not be singled out, this is happening every time nowadays!!

July 13, 2013, 15:29 GMT


He should have walked. There are countless young children watching the game. By his action (or inaction) Broad told them it was okay to err as long you are not caught. Comparing his action to Australians not walking is as good as saying that you can commit murder becasue someone else did it. I have only one word for Broad: Shame on you!

July 13, 2013, 14:43 GMT


The topic related whether broad should walk, he knew he was out but umpire decided other way. okay Australians are gutted . people wont forget what happen down under when India was there couple of seasons before symonds knew he edged and did not walk[culprit umpire is steve buckner]on the same day symonds went on to score a century which decides the series in favor of Australians before that Indians were right on top of the Aussies .symonds on that day in a post match interview told i knew i was out but umpire did not gave me out so i stood and continued .on the same series Ricky ponting edged it and was caught behind he did not walk he stood his ground and scored runs on that match whom to blame Aussies went on to win that match and of course the series.we can give lot of examples like this but it wont be fair . if broad might had walked England would be bowled out quickly bell must not scored his ton many thing would happen .its a part of game we have to move hard to accept the truth

July 13, 2013, 14:23 GMT


Whatever happened to the phrase: Cricket is a gentleman's game??? I guess it went out of the window with lots of money and pride at stake.

You walk if you know you had an edge! Period. No if ands or buts.

July 13, 2013, 14:03 GMT


Actually not so sure about YES but it feels good when batsman walks, it increases respect both towards the game and the batsman. That's what we have heard Cricket is gentleman's game.

July 13, 2013, 13:45 GMT


Whatever happened to honesty? Just because most of your co-players around the world would not walk is all the more reason for you to chart your own legacy. Its a shame that Broad chose to lose an opportunity to make up for the number of misdemeanors he has previously demonstrated on the cricket field. And of course he did not set the right example for kids who want to see players as their role models. I am mightily disappointed when I see behavior like this!

July 13, 2013, 12:14 GMT


I think he should have walked. it is at the end a gentlemans game.

July 13, 2013, 11:52 GMT


"NO" is only for those who would want to Win at Any Cost and "YES" for those who are Gentlemen.

July 13, 2013, 11:49 GMT


Yes he should have walked. The first time I saw a player walk was when I was around 8-10 years old, I have no recolection of who the player was as it was over 25 years ago but it was an Australian. There was a big apeal and the umpire said not out, then the batsman walked off the ground. I asked my Dad "why is he going off the umpire said not out" to the my father replied "because he knew that he hit it and it was the right thing to do." Since then I have seen players walk and not walk famously Adam Gilchrist walked (I think against india) and Ricky Ponting stood his ground (vs Pakistan). When I played as a kid I always admitted when I knicked it as I always believed it was the right thing to do. What example are players like Broad and Ponting setting for our young kids, with the old analogy "its not weather you win or lose but how you play the game".

July 13, 2013, 11:47 GMT


July 12, 2013 The question is, Should Stuart Broad have walked? and not to compare what others does. In my opinion Stewart Broad should have walked off for the spirit of the game as he knew that he was out which he displayed from his body language.

July 13, 2013, 11:20 GMT


Stuart Broad should have walked out...sports man spirit is necessary in sports...and after all umpires can commit mistakes. Mr. Shane Warne must remember when Justin Langer was given not out in 2nd test match off the bowling of Wasim Akram by Australian umpire and due to that wrong decision PAKISTAN lost that test match in 1999. Australian umpires had been indulged in giving poor decisions in the past. I remember Newzealand lost the test against Australia due to poor umpiring when Steve Waugh was captain.

July 13, 2013, 11:17 GMT


I feel there shouldn't even be a debate here on whether or not a batsman should walk when he himself knows he is out. Stuart Broad's case yesterday is no different. I feel he should definitely have walked. As a genuine cricket fan, what I feel most sad about is that everybody is blaming only the umpire for giving a wrong decision. It is true that the umpire made a mistake, but I feel Stuart Broad is to blame even more than the umpire. The umpire's decision could have been a human error, but Broad not walking while clearly knowing he was out is an act of blatant dishonesty, which should clearly not be acceptable in the 'Gentlemen's game'. I feel very sad seeing that standing your ground as a batsman when you know you're out is still being regarded as perfectly within the spirit of the game, even by many former greats of the game. We blame bowlers for bad appeals, fielders for claiming dropped catches, I think it is now time for us to think about the batsmen as well...

July 13, 2013, 10:45 GMT


I think in the spirit of the game he should have walked but how many times have we seen the Aussies and other sides do the stand their ground? I guess dodgy decisions in this match stands at 1-1, also for I think this referral system and going upstairs for 3rd umpire ruins the rhythm of a game, either sportsmanship or the umpires on the pitch should have the final say apart from run outs!!

July 13, 2013, 10:36 GMT


Broad should have walked because he knew that he has clearly edged the ball into the hands of the slip fielder.

July 13, 2013, 10:35 GMT


Against Australia No!! How many times have Australians played in the spirit of the game. Did Symonds walk agains India in the second test match in Sydney "No" he didn't!!! As he put it then "That's Cricket"

July 13, 2013, 10:28 GMT


Yes , he should have. Remember in 2011 when indians had appealed for Bell's run out, Andy Flower and Strauss had approached us in the tea break to supposedly uphold the spirit of the game and we did.

Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, englishmen are giving completely the opposite arguments......i.e whic suits them better.

July 13, 2013, 10:06 GMT


Yes, he should have, but no, he didn't have to. The real issue is, if DRS didn't deal with this entirely avoidable error, then the DRS process needs review. Spend the time getting these - critical - decisions right rather than looking (selectively ?) for front-foot no-balls when wickets fall. I believe catches, like stumpings, should be reviewed at the umpire's discretion and the captains' reviews should be for lbw only. This shouldn't waste a lot of time, how many frivolous appeals for catches do we see ?

July 13, 2013, 10:00 GMT


as a player u dont care what other do but if u know u nick it then u should walk dont wait , u r setting an example for others too, and then u get a mind of ur own and u will live with that. and remember God is watching u, so fear him and be honest and life will be easy for u, may god bless u all.

July 13, 2013, 9:57 GMT


Yes,he should have Walked.Holding correctly said that Broad violated the spirit of the game and I.C.C.should suspend him like Ramadin.Broad knew he was out and it was blatant unsportsmanship on his part.I wish cricketers followed the example of Adam Gilchrist.I understand if it was faint nick but this was clear connection with the bat.So sad that we see unsportsmanship by the very English,the founders of this glorious game.

July 13, 2013, 9:57 GMT


Well, the trend of waiting for the umpire even after the knowing 100% out is set by Aussies. How many times Steve Waugh, A Border, I Chappel, M Clarke, R Ponting and S Watson walked off without waiting for umpire's signal when they knew that they were out. Aussies may jump now, but in the same situation what Aussies will do? Will they walk? Everyone will know the answer. Anyway Broad shouldn't have followed Aussies style. He should have walked off.

July 13, 2013, 9:55 GMT


Cricket is Gentlemen sport, if you dont walk when you know you are out! then its no more Gentlemen - it will end as an EGO Game

July 13, 2013, 9:50 GMT


The world should know that every cricketer is not Hashim Amla.

July 13, 2013, 9:07 GMT


For THAT obious an edge, of course he should have walked. BUT, Stuart Broad is NEVER out in his own eyes - we've seen him use reviews up for clear outs in the past. Broad will, rightly, take some stick on his refusal to walk. But the role of the umpiring needs to be scrutinised more in cases like this. I cannot believe that the best umpire in the world made as big a howler as that and, in cases like that, I believe that the umpire should be either stood down from the match immediately or be suspended for one match as a punishment. If a batsman makes a king pair, or a bowler gets 0 for 200 in a test, they would be under pressure for their place. The same should apply for umpires, and I do hope that the ICC make this stand - even if it is for Aleem Dar, the best umpre in the world. I'd also like this to apply to Erasmus for his two howlers in day 2. England still need another 50 to 60 runs to be safe, but I can't see them losing from here.

July 13, 2013, 8:41 GMT


Why should he have walked? An australian would have never walked. I wish Dar had consulted the third umpire. And its not Dar or Broad's fault that the Aussies were out of referrals!

July 13, 2013, 8:41 GMT


Isn't it a gentleman's game... It is not a video game where technology is everything... For those people who are advocating about using reviews wisely.. A captain uses DRS only when they are absolute sure.. they can be wrong more than two occasions and there is no right to limit these to two..

There are millions of people watching cricket, as Ashes is the series which is very keenly followed from all around the world... To save the sportsman spirit, to save the soul of Cricket, If a batsman knows he is out, he should walked off.

July 13, 2013, 8:40 GMT


There is a big difference between not walking for a keeper catch and not walking for a slips catch. In my experience, batsmen sometimes don't feel the thin edge of a catch to the keeper, so if they're not sure they shouldn't walk. Yet, I've never met one batsman who didn't feel an edge to slip. To turn this into an 'Aussies don't walk, why should we?' argument is just cheap point scoring. Tell me an Aussie who didn't walk when he'd edged to first slip and I'll listen to you.

July 13, 2013, 8:40 GMT


For me, umpires should come in to picture only when no player is sure about it. Otherwise, all players should walk out(batsman) or shouldn't appeal(bowlers/fielders) But that is impossible. We shouldn't have review system at all or allow players to review more number of times even if it slows down the whole thing.

July 13, 2013, 8:30 GMT


This is totally fair not to walk. More so against Australia. Australia for all the dominance, their players are not mature to accept defeat. They have been favored on quite a few occasions which helped them win. Under Ganguly we had to face the wrath. Being an ardent cricket fan from India - I have seen India at the receiving end quite a few times. In fact, England themselves have done that against us. I can quote at least two instances in test cricket....

July 13, 2013, 8:28 GMT


Broad should have walked off the field because cricket is a gentleman's game and should remain as such. Aleem Dar should not be criticised for his wrong decision because human beings do make errors. Some people would disagree with me because they would argue that batsman has to leave when he is given out wrongly.

July 13, 2013, 8:06 GMT


This incident and the one involving the 'hot spot' clearly highlight the limitations of the DRS.

July 13, 2013, 7:59 GMT


As a cricketer and someone who is representing his country plus take into account that it was Ashes (holy grail of rivalry b/w Aus vs Eng) , he should have walked. It was outrageous of Broad to have just walked down as if nothing happened . Umpires can be forgiven for not having realized the nick , but the player who nicked should have done the right thing . Well , in another way it was "Coming a full circle" for Clarke who was himself standing for umpire to tell when he had edged Kumble to Dravid .

Well ,in short for me as a cricket follower this episode is a shame on Broad .That too coming from the son of a respected match referee .

July 13, 2013, 7:58 GMT


One cannot expect anything better from Stuart Broad. He is an average cricketer who seems to have set the bar very low when it comes to sportsmanship. Aussies aren't too much better. However, two things are worth noticing here - first, did Aleem Dar really not hear such a big nick? If yes, then it means Aleem need to consult an ENT immediately. If no, it means he favoured Broad and England by not giving him out knowing fully well that Aus did not have any reviews left. This raises serious questions given the fact that he was relegated to a fourth umpire in the very recent CT 2013 allegedly for seeking to replace the ball suspecting ball tampering by England. Also most umpires (even third umpires) seem too lenient towards Stuart Broad. This prompts one to investigate the role of Chris Broad in influencing the umpires directly or indirectly. He should actually be barred from holding any position with the ICC pending such investigation. Cricket would be richer without the Broads.

July 13, 2013, 7:57 GMT


There is a difference between a nick and hitting the leather off the thing (which Broad did). Broad is now a man of dubious character. And can we put an end to the nonsense that Agar was clearly out. He wasn't and Trott was.

July 13, 2013, 7:53 GMT


Broad should've walked. His behavior is no different from a footballer diving for penalty. Its against spirit of game. I think third umpire should've rights to over rule a decision based on the TV replay even without referral.

July 13, 2013, 7:53 GMT


No , I do not think it is up to Broad. How many umpire's, referee,s etc are there at the game ? how many pieces of high tech equipment are there available?. it was blatant to say the least! but it is clear umpires are reluctant to ask for assistance outside the captains allocation for reasons of self preservation and therefore will continue to blunder to the detriment of fair play. High tech assistance can now be seen for what it is really worth, little!.

July 13, 2013, 7:50 GMT


ICC is responsible for Broad's not walking off after clearly edging the ball. There should be a strict rule that if it is evident that the batsman knows that he has edged the ball, he should walk unconditionally. Similarly when fielders appeal for grounded catches, they must be punished. ICC need to introduce strict laws in order to improve the fairness in cricket.

July 13, 2013, 7:43 GMT


What Broad has done is truly against the spirit of the game and sportsmanship. Whatever Symonds or Clark or Ricky has done in past was also against the spirit of the game. It is not mandatory to repeat the same what your opponent has done in past. A batsman might not be aware of leg before whether he is out of not, but he might be definitely be aware of the edge in some instants. So upon those instants he should walk away even the umpire declares you NOT OUT. That shows the true spirit of the game and sportsmanship. ICC should follow a new rule against these instants. A batsman has to walk away if there is an edge which he is aware of. If he fails in doing so, then he should be suspended from playing the match and the remaining tournament. And the teams also should play with the remaining 10 player for the remaining of the match. A game has to be played with true spirit and sportsmanship.

July 13, 2013, 7:32 GMT


What Broad has done is truly against the spirit of the game & sportsmanship. When you are aware of the edge, then you should walk away as it shows the true spirit in your game, sportsmanship as well as your loyalty. What Andrew Syomonds or Clark or Ricky has done isn't fare on the part of cricket. Its not mandatory that if someone has done it and so we also repeat the same. True spirit has to be shown towards the game. Player can't be aware of whether he is out leg before or nor, but he is aware of whether nicked the edge or not. So in that case if umpire concludes a NOT OUT, then he should walk away keeping in mind the spirit of game and true sportsmanship. ICC should think of these incidents and should ploy a new rule for players of walking away if there is healthy edge off the batsman bat. If the player doesn't do so, then he should be ruled out of the match & tournament and the team should play the on going match with 10 players only.

July 13, 2013, 7:27 GMT


Broad should have shown sportsman spirit. He should have walked away. This was really against the spirit of the game to stand tall on getting dismissed when everyone knew, you are out. It was Australia's hardluck that they were left with no reviews but it doesn't mean that a player should spoil the taste of the entire game. The game was getting interesting and at that point the game would have taken a twist, but Broad spoiled it all. I being a Pakistani was watching the Ashes, both are Neutral teams for me but offcourse I am not watching this that a player like Broad should come and give me such a display and ask me(indirectly) that I shouldn't watch this Ashes anymore.

July 13, 2013, 7:20 GMT


That's just not "Cricket"...

July 13, 2013, 7:16 GMT


If there is still reviews left, He would have walked, so he is taking the advantage of non reviews left.

No of Reviews should be allocated against no of overs used, once the inning reaches a certain no of overs, additional review should be added, like Tennis.

only allow two per inning is silly.

July 13, 2013, 7:10 GMT


NO.He shouldn't have walk as it was d same case in last ashes with clark in australia and he didnt walk back........its look like wats goes arourd comes around .......and aussies r really bad in sportsmanship so dey shouldn't argue abt it..........

July 13, 2013, 7:10 GMT


Irrespective of whether Broad was entitled to stand his ground based on the rules or not, his decision not to walk after such a blatant 'OUT' says a lot about his character (or lack of it?). On numerous occasions he has displayed his overblown sense of self-importance and this is yet another example. A sportsman he is NOT.

July 13, 2013, 7:01 GMT


No, no, no. A close call is one thing and we've all taken advantage of it. Broad was blatant. Anyone doing that should be penalised heavily, whether it be Broad or Clarke.

No comment about the Umpire who's mind must have been elsewhere.

July 13, 2013, 6:42 GMT


Yes, this feat wil always cast shadow over an otherwise brilliant victory. In addition, Broads batting record will be always linked to this. In the past, cricketers could get away from this by the lack of TV coverage; but this one will be repeated over and over again, does not look pretty on the highlights DVD that many will purchase. Broad could have saved him the loss of cricketing spirit related reptation which consists,amongst other things,of true sportsmanship acknoledgng when you are outdone by oponents sportive superiority.

July 13, 2013, 6:37 GMT


Stuart Broad can be a great bolwler,he might win Ashes for England but one thing is certain, he will never win neutral cricket hearts....there will be nothing heroic about him.England won't have the pride,honour,dignity and sportsmanship of guys like Adam Gilchrist brought to Australia.

July 13, 2013, 6:19 GMT


Even if nobody out in field would have unknown about it he should have departed from their with sportsmanship's honesty

July 13, 2013, 6:13 GMT


One must respect game rules but before all its about how much you respect the game, how much you give value to 'spirit of the game' and being honesty... which English nor Australian players have that sense much (Except few players & occasions) :) ...Here there is no place for being personal here, if you really love and respect the game...they (ENG/AUS) do nasty/naughty things just for a win...

Match referee/officials should have word with Umpire and player and teach them to be honest...

July 13, 2013, 5:52 GMT


he should have, but most of them playing the gentleman's game are Stewart Brod's... an Adam Gilchrist comes only once in a century... He preserved his wicket, England may go on to win the test, but an opportunity to set an example was squandered.

July 13, 2013, 5:48 GMT


Ketan asks what is the difference between what Ramdin did and what Broad did. The difference is that claiming a catch when you know you have dropped it is a positive attempt to deceive the umpire whereas simply waiting for the umpire's decision isn't. I think that on balance I am with those who say that the batsman is entitled to wait for the decision of the umpire. However, it is not something that sits comfortably. You can argue that waiting for the decision when you know you got an edge is a passive attempt to deceive the umpire. Every player is signed up to The Spirit of Cricket, which involves 'respect for the game's traditional values.' If 'walking' isn't a 'traditional value', what is?

July 13, 2013, 5:45 GMT


Whether he should have walked or not was Broad's choice. If a wicket keeper or a fielder can be penalized for not upholding the spirit of the game for claiming a catch that was not, as it happened recently, Broad should be penalized on the same count. Mr Broad, should also learn his lessons.

July 13, 2013, 5:41 GMT


he should walked out since its clearly edged the bat

July 13, 2013, 5:34 GMT


Once Tendulkar was confronted with a similar situation and he walked. Later, in the media, he said he would never wait for an umpire decision and knew he had nicked it and hence preferred to walk (The umpire didn't give 'out' there too). But asked on his stance in the whole matter, Ponting said he would always wait for the umpire's call and that's the way he'd always played the game.

We can easily infer these things have certainly to do with the batsman's temperament on the field and also has to do with their characters. We cant possibly imagine a player to change his stance on the game with a few dubious moments. Though I personally think Broad should have walked, he didn't owing to his disposition. We could see almost not even a change of expression in his face. Just a cold, impassive look was there immediately after that delivery. I would suggest for more reviews to be accorded with for a team in lieu of this kind of controversial decisions.

July 13, 2013, 5:29 GMT


Let me ask this, as a batsman can you refuse to leave the pitch if you get a bad decision? then how can you expect a batsman to walk when the umpire doesn't rule him out, some days there is good luck and some days there is bad luck and I am sure these will even out.

July 13, 2013, 5:27 GMT


Yes ... Broad should have walked out since he nicked it ... He might have been afraid that if he goes out .. others are bowlers so they will get out and AUS will have to chase less total ... Cricket is a sportsmen game ... Playing True game would have been a good sports spirit since this kind of game will spoil their name .... Such incidents have happened ... like Bell's run out in recent IND-ENG test match in which he itself thought the ball had gone for four and came out of crease and got him run out ... but still with some requests he played again ... Trott four in a dead ball from jadeja ... England have best bowling attack and so they should believe in it .....

July 13, 2013, 5:19 GMT


He should have walked simply. The edge was so obvious. It was not like he did not know or people watching it did not know. In other words, there was no confusion. The argument has no merit that until umpire tells a batsman to go the batsman should walk. Here, Broad violated the spirit of the game and put the game in disrepute. Honesty is the hallmark of success. Had it been not so patent, I agree then he should have waited for the umpire's decision. In this case it was as clear as white from black. Say whatever, Broad had the responsibility to walk away. Holding made the right point when he mentioned what Ramdin did was no different from what Broad did. The rules do not dictate "spirit of the game". It is like when there is gross injustice or inequity then courts have the powers of equity to overrule the rules to keep the faith in the system and to serve justice. Here the game was more important than the decision of the umpire. Broad you are guilty as charged.

July 13, 2013, 5:15 GMT


As the event unfolded, I must admit to a certain sour taste - the horrible feeling at losing a wicket with a slender second innings lead - and then, that decision: it was somewhat surreal, but despite my initial head-shaking and, 'why hasn't he walked?'-ings - I've stepped back and looked at the bigger picture, the drama, the narrative and the context. I think in a way, to absorb some of the more ranty positions. The most absurd though is a comparison with the West Indian Ramdin.

Nicking and not walking is nothing and never has been anything like claiming a catch. One is a passive act, in which there is no recourse but to be judged; the other is an active and deliberate misrepresentation. A batsman does not appeal and request a verdict of not out, therefore, in a way the climax is out of his hands - that's the drama of the game. To claim a catch however? Well, that's just perjury and should never happen - it the difference between silence and the lie outright. It's absurd to compare.

July 13, 2013, 5:11 GMT


Of course, he should have walked. It was a big edge. Awful umpiring by aleem dar!

July 13, 2013, 4:55 GMT


Whinging in interviews, & lodging protests over 50/50 calls and then blatantly exploiting a poor decision, how unsporting are these 'modern Eng cricketers'. Shows how much confidence Eng have in their ability to play match winning cricket.

July 13, 2013, 4:54 GMT


Game of Cricket is about sportsmanship, about grace and about honor. I believe Broad should have upheld that tradition, that spirit. Winning is important, however, if Broad had walked he would have enhanced his reputation, he would have added to England's prestige. I only hope that either Australia wins the Test Match or there is so much rain next two days so that it ends in draw.

July 13, 2013, 4:29 GMT


well......not going in history whatever oz have done before,broad must walked....as he's the one who was absolutely sure about the edge and there is no logic of who else didn't walked after getting the nick.Be a sportsman yourself don't being bother about who was not,for the sportsman spirit he must've walked and can show his sportsmanship infront of other young cricketers those who watching them live or on tv..

July 13, 2013, 4:27 GMT


In the spirit of the game he should have walked and made the job of the umpire easy but if the laws of the game are considered then he waited for the umpire's decision. I think from now on batsman should wait even if they are bowled or caught on the boundary till the umpire gives them out. umpires are paid and they need to do their job. Who cares a damn for the spirit of the game. sportsmen want to succeed at all times and sometimes they do adopt measure which dont suggest that they are playing their sports in the true spirit.

July 13, 2013, 4:18 GMT


How Aussies can expect Broad to "Walk" when their present and past captains refused to walk on so many occasions. (except perhaps Adam Gilchrist). I feel that it is within their rights to walk or not to walk. At the same time, batsmen should leave the ground the moment Umpire or third umpire declare him out even though it was a clear case of misjudgement.

July 13, 2013, 4:18 GMT


I can't understand why they are only given the certain number of requests to the third umpire. Also I feel that the umpires should be allowed to ask for a decision from the third umpire if they are not sure. Appreciated it might be looked at as time wasting if a team uses the referral system but if they put a penalty against it for unsuccessful appeals then teams would be more cautious about using it.

July 13, 2013, 4:13 GMT


But....... Why Why when given out while not out by umpire no one says its not out come on let him play only saying part of game its umpire decision

July 13, 2013, 3:54 GMT


If he is a gentleman cricketer, Yes, Broad should have walked. He clearly edged it and the catch was taken. He is only bringing disrepute on himself, the game and his famous father. Unfortunately, Broad oes ow many examples can you find of gentleman cricketers nowadays - Adam Gilchrist and Rahul Dravid to name a couple of greats, perhaps a couple more. Broad may win the game for England by his ungracious act, but he definitely lost a lot of fans (including yours truly) and of course, the spirit of the gentleman's game.

July 13, 2013, 3:51 GMT


What counts is whether you are out or not. The only role of the umpire in this is to make sure the rules are upheld. I don't think the rules would say any more than that if you hit it and it is caught you are out. Let's listen to the appeal: 'How is that?' The umpire is asked to rule on whether it is out or not out. What he is ruling on already exists. It does not come into existence the moment the umpire signals. If the batsman and the fielders nearby know the batsman is out he has to go. Again, the question to be or not to be. If you decide not to be, then you will be told what you are, which is invidious. Broad apparently failed in this aspect of the game, which is far more important than runs.

July 13, 2013, 3:50 GMT


Most players who do not walk do so on feather nicks etc where there may be some doubt that they can work on.It is facile to be arguing in this case that other players do not walk so why should Broad have walked? The circumstances are totally different.In all the years that I have been watching and playing cricket,I cannot remember any player not walking on such an obvious edge and it does bring the game into disrepute. It sets such a poor example to young players.It also shows what a mess the ICC have made of the DRS in that it could not have been used to get the correct decision.What about the third umpire being able to initiate a review without being requested by the match umpire? So poor effort from Broad, Dar and the ICC.

July 13, 2013, 3:40 GMT


remember ind versus australia sydney test. ponting edged dint walk, symonds was out dint walk, ponting caught ganguly after a bump and claimed the catch after umpire requested ponting to give the verdict and india was in a strong position ended up losing the test.

in a way justice is served

all this inspite of the following 1 - still believe broad should've walked 2 - am supporting australia this series

July 13, 2013, 3:20 GMT


He should have walked. In fact, ICC should now bring in a code of conduct for those who are not walking. If batsmen start walking, umpire errors will come down. Umpires will start trusting a batsman if he stays his ground when he knows that the batsman, otherwise, would have walked. Today it has become a catch 22 situation. Batmen are not walking because umpires sometimes give them "unfairly" out. Umpire's give them "unfairly" out because they do not trust the batsmen.

July 13, 2013, 3:19 GMT


It would be a bit rich if we Aussies complained about Broad not walking. It was Aleem Dar's mistake, not a mistake of conscience or morality by Broad. When I coach kids at football and cricket I tell them: The umpire's decision is sacrosanct, and must be obeyed. You accept it and get on with the game. I hope Michael Clarke's men do the same. Mind you I'd like to ask Aleem "What game were you watching son?" That was as big a howler as you could see.

July 13, 2013, 3:01 GMT


Aussies have even sometimes opposed decision and never walked out.....Its Cricket ...and that too Ashes....Any one takes advantage of the things turning in favour of them.....

July 13, 2013, 2:56 GMT


I do not know if broad should have walked, we should stop taking polls , to get people's opinion on one or two incidents in a particular match. The is no end when you magnify the problem, it could start from the time when wasim akram had not got the LBW decision of rahul dravid but followed with another exceptional ball to get him out. Broad is still a no. 7 imagine dravid receiving a life. Its not a life threating emergency, but yes one can certainly feel depressed, but Australians have done very well in hiding there anger, the debate should be how much can we credit Australians in consoling themselves, i dont say that lightly and my respect to Oz have gone one up. Kudos

July 13, 2013, 2:00 GMT


I was never a walker, myself and we had very ordinary umpires compared to the high class Umpires that officiate in Test Matches. Every umpire makes mistakes and considering Agars good fortune. He was clearly out stumped and Trott definetely hit his ball on to his pad; I don;t blame Broad for standing his ground in view of the 2 previous howlers England received, courtesy of the 3rd Umpire.I think Australia is still in front as far as decisions go in this match. Despite this it has been one of the most intriguing test matches, I have ever watched; and the twist in the tail is not finished yet. Go Aussies.

July 13, 2013, 1:48 GMT


I think he should have walked. As being a proffesional cricketer he should shows such character. As professional is always termed as being moral and ethical, he should have been ethical.How can you stay on the pitch with such a huge edge and also what was the umpire doing, i think he was sleeping there wearing sunglasses.

July 13, 2013, 1:09 GMT


In this competitive world the spirit of the game has unfortunately taken a beating. Of course Broad should hv walked. At the same time the Aussies will recall Sydney 2008 when Simons should hv walked and didn't . Onl proves the world is round!

July 13, 2013, 0:57 GMT


I think broad should have walked because this is clearly against the spirit of cricket. This is top draw cricket and the entire cricket family takes keen interst in these ashes matches.This action by stuart broad is not at all acceptable. The ICC should be make it mandatory for players to walk off if they are clearly out, rather than waiting for the umpires decision

July 13, 2013, 0:55 GMT


I hate seeing injustice prevail. I hated seeing Symonds stand his ground after a massive nick off Sharma in 2008. Australia's win then was tainted, and if England goes on to win as it should, it will be tainted, no question. I have no respect for Symonds or for Broad. As naive as it will sound to some in this age of professionalism and self-interest, players have a responsibility to the game of cricket, and after the mesmerising, wonderful first few days of this test, Broad has introduced a bitter note that may sour this Test if not the series. He has damaged the game. Aleem Dar's incompetence is a secondary issue and would not even be an issue if Broad had done the right thing and served the game rather than served himself.

July 13, 2013, 0:26 GMT


Walking is batsman's wish and no body could force them. When India played Australia Andrew Symonds was out twice by being caught behind and he has not walked out and it changed the whole complex of the match when was in total control Both the times it was umpire Steve Bucknor and Indian Board strongly opposed and sent bucknor out of umpiring panel. No Australian has walked out except Gilchrist who will never wait for an umpiring decision. The only thing should be done Reviews should not be restricted Nothing wrong in keeping more reviews if ICC admits that umpiring errors are not intention. ICC should look into it very seriously for the welfare of the game where no team or umpire should take the blame.

July 13, 2013, 0:13 GMT


Ramdin was banned for claiming a dropped catch. This is similar, Broad has stood the ground for an obvious edge. I don't want him to walk, but he should be reprimanded for his action.The ban would acknowledge that he did not play fair. But as an Indian, I like that this happened to Clarke. His edge was even bigger in 2008.

July 12, 2013, 23:59 GMT


The edge was that obvious that Broad should have walked. If it has been a fine edge then there is a reason to stay. However, what was the third umpire doing, watching football? Bring back Simon Taufel, even though he couldn't stand in this match the quality of umpiring would be far better.

July 12, 2013, 23:32 GMT


broad is a poor example for true sportsmanship of which he has none. and whatever he can get away with ,he clearly doesn't shy away from taking full advantage. his no-ball off of which steve davis gave kane williamson out was a classic x-ample. and to think his father is a match referee.there is no gentleman's game any more!!

July 12, 2013, 22:59 GMT


Yes. I think the batsman should always walk if they know they have hit it - sometimes it's hard to tell as a batsman (though not often.) It's like someone's wallet falls out of their pocket and instead of giving it back you filch it. There is a philosophy that you get what you can out of life and many will applaud or at least excuse Broad. I think it undermines him as a player. He is good enough without the gamesmanship. His dismissal was complicated from the umpire's v/p by the sheer amount of stuff going on - Broad's swing at the ball and body movement, the ball hitting Haddin on the way through to the slip fielder etc. It was still a poor decision however in a Test where there have been a few and technology has proved controversial again. I believe in circumstances like this the Third umpire should be able to intervene. I also think that teams should each get one review per session, not two in the innings.

July 12, 2013, 22:35 GMT


An Aussie would not have done it! I remember Steve Waugh refusing to inform the Ump that the ball hit by Lara had in fact had hit the ground before he caught it.

July 12, 2013, 22:18 GMT


Ban the non walkers the same way they suspended the West Indian keeper for claiming a catch that was not - where is the difference....the game would self regulate and there would be no need for the review system

July 12, 2013, 22:10 GMT


Any player should uphold the spirit of the game. When Broad has started, he might have learned what the rules and conditions that he has to follow. Is it agreeable to him if England win by 1 run, but the umpire declares that Aussies win? Probably his mind has not matured enough that it is just a game at the end of the day, and he has to follow certain principles in life; being FAIR is one of them.

More than the umpire Aleem Dar, I imagine that Stuart Broad would not have slept well, and if that had happened, I hope that that would be the first step of playing a fair game in the future.

July 12, 2013, 22:00 GMT


I thought Broad was a bit better than that. It was as blatant as a handball in football, England were in a strong position anyway, should have done the decent thing, regardless of who has / has not walked in the past.

July 12, 2013, 21:57 GMT


Batsmen should always walk when they know they are out and in this case it appears that Broad knew full well - as Vamsi Kris said he took advantage of the Aussies being out of reviews. It is entirely possible that most batsmen would walk if this very act of sportsmanship was appreciated and valued by those following the game today. Given that a large vocal majority would think the batsmen is an idiot for walking, given the stakes that are involved in the game today, and given that the batsmen would probably get taken to task by his captain for "giving away" his wicket there is little incentive these days to walk. I was at Newlands in 1964 when Ken Barrington walked despite being given not out. How refreshing! Where are the Ken Barringtons of the cricketing world now when the game so badly needs them?

July 12, 2013, 21:49 GMT


Yes definitely Broad should have walked. He should be banned couple of games for this bad sportsmanship. If this is done by an asian cricketer then the entire world would have gone against the team as well as the country. The match referee has to punish if we think Cricket is a gentleman's game.

July 12, 2013, 21:47 GMT


Broad, with this decision, had a Golden chance to redeem himself as a player and a person. Sadly, he BLEW it. Let himself and his nation down in disgrace.

In my humble, worthless opinion, Broad and the terrible umpires, Dar and Erasmus, should ALL be fined half of their match fee for their crass and pitiful poor decisions. This is the Ashes TEST series. Probably about as BIG as any occassion gets in International Cricket. Shambolic and shameful.

July 12, 2013, 21:36 GMT


The spirit of cricket is always weakened when players await the umpire's decision before walking WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE OUT.Players of that ilk are always of lesser talent than the great ones, for example, BRIAN LARA.

July 12, 2013, 21:30 GMT


You wait only if it is an LBW shout. You edge, you walk. That has been my philosophy and I think that's how it should be. But then...

July 12, 2013, 21:24 GMT


Please keep this in mind. England players of today never walk. This is not the Lara, the Gilchrist and a few others on who would walk. Don't you see how they appeal for everything?

July 12, 2013, 21:15 GMT


I don't care about whats happened in the past- People haven't walked but then we didnt have the kind of technology we have now. I think people should be punished for not playing in the spirit of the game. Just as Ramdin gets punished, so should Broad. This is totally unacceptable behaviour. As for Dar, lord knows where his mind was wandering at that time.

July 12, 2013, 20:43 GMT


Yes he should have walked! I know many before him haven't walked for even more obvious edges but when you look at it should be considered part of the spirit of the game. Not walking when you know you have edged it is was than what Ramdin did when he claimed that catch! He was penalised for it and I believe Broad and any other batsman who doesn't walk for an obvious edge like this should be penalised to! And not to mention had Australia had a review we wouldn't be talking about this broad would have started walking toward the boundary straight away but because he knew that the didn't he stood his ground! It is ridiculous to think that this a perfectly justifiable action. So Yes Broad should have walked. No doubt.

July 12, 2013, 20:42 GMT


Aussies didnt have any further reviews. Broad just took advantage of it...simple as that. Ultimately, its the umpire's decision and aleem dar got it wrong..he wouldnt have slept by now...sad error but thats the beauty of cricket.. On the other side, you would never see a oz guy walking off..apart from gilly in one such incident..

July 12, 2013, 20:26 GMT


He should have walked. Michael Holding has made an excellent point. The ICC suspend Denesh Ramdin for "conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game". What is Broad doing for "the spirit of the game" by standing his ground knowing that the umpire had erred and that Australia had carelessly wasted their reviews. The same people who defend Broad will no doubt campaign for the death sentence during the 2014 Football World Cup for footballers exposed for simulation which is cheating. I do not see the difference in Broad's actions today. Did Jonny Bairstow get a reprimand from Flower and Cook for walking straight off without waiting for the umpire when he nicked one to Haddin? The way some ex-England captains were talking, he probably did. Integrity is supposedly one of the ties that knit cricket together, but it is obvious that high stakes and financial reward have replaced that. What an awful example to set young cricketers in what is a major showcase for test cricket.

July 12, 2013, 20:21 GMT


Broad should have walked. It was clear as hitting in the outfield and walked straight away, but because of the previous errors in the match he also decided to try his luck. Its really unfortunate that we are all using pass issues to justify whats right and wrong. I still feel regardless of pass sins, let honesty and integrity be your guide. Do what is right. Blaming everyone and everything around is a disgrace instead of using common sense

July 12, 2013, 20:16 GMT


Walking is an essential element of the game at park level to ensure the spirit of the game is observed. Whilst not necessary at international level most of the time (due to DRS) if it is not observed it will also be lost at club level. Any batsman who does not walk will soon find this bowler not observing the unwritten rules to their discomfort. Aussies also take some of the blame for poor use of reviews and the umpire made a poor decision. Why does Ramdin get banned and Broad not?

July 12, 2013, 20:13 GMT


Yes I agree with krvij's comment.

West Indies wicketkeeper Denesh Ramdin was banned for two matches and fined for breaching conduct "contrary to the spirit of the game" after claiming a catch he had dropped in a Champions Trophy match against Pakistan "This is regarded as a serious offence as it is the responsibility of all players to act in the spirit of the game," Chris Broad, the ICC match referee, said. "I hope Mr Ramdin has learnt his lesson from this incident and that we will not see such behaviour by him or any player in the future."

I don't see the difference between what Ramdin did and what Broad has done! Somebody explain please.

July 12, 2013, 19:47 GMT


Well it's a bit controversial now , since the review system is in place. It has become a 'you can lie since the other team has a chance to challenge you' thing.

But I still support candidness and give high regard to sportsmanship. So yes, I think he should have walked

July 12, 2013, 19:37 GMT


It's Umpires error and Alim Dar tend make these kind of mistake (knowing/unknowing) but it's causing the good bowling, good team and Cricket!!! In these case third umpire himself should check and give out or give more chance to use DRS, giving just two chance will not serve the purpuse of DRS.. either give 5+ or don't use it!!!

July 12, 2013, 19:24 GMT


When you tend to hit the ball with 'that'sort of nick, I assume everyone should walk off. It's just like nicking a fast bowler to the slips really. And Broad acted too naive to walk towards Bell and continue with his 'not out'act. This shouldn't come from someone whose the country's captain in other forms of the game.

July 12, 2013, 18:52 GMT


Yes he should walked because it is the beauty of the game

July 12, 2013, 18:49 GMT


Absolutely should have walked. At times as a batsman you are not sure, but this was almost like catching practice to the slips.

July 12, 2013, 18:46 GMT


Yes, S Broad should have walked in the 'spirit of the game'. From this its clear that most of the teams talk about 'spirit' only when it is beneficial to them. I totally agree with the comments of @CaliforniasFinest. The match referee should take this up with Broad & his team. If Ramdin was punished, then Broad deserves the same as well. Rules should be applied on all consistently.

July 12, 2013, 18:41 GMT


Broad should have walked - but ONLY if there were a law in place allowing the Aussies and umpires to permit Trott to resume his innings and rescind his incorrect dismissal.

I wonder how the Aussies would take that?

July 12, 2013, 18:33 GMT


If Broad knew that he had nicked that ball, he should have walked to uphold the spirit of cricket. However, he was well within his rights to stand his ground. I would like for rules to be changed and a one match ban awarded to players who don't walk when they know that they are out.

This incident was similar to the Denesh Ramdhin incident during the Champions trophy. If Ramdhin got a two match ban, the same should apply to Broad.

BTW, it was Karma smacking Clarke in the face - he did not walk when he nicked Pitersen in Adelaide (Ashes 2010) and when he edged Kumble to first slip (Sydney 2008) and stood his ground. What goes around comes around.

July 12, 2013, 18:24 GMT


After the England team all released comments about Trotts dismissal - Thought they would have more class. Dar needs to be banned for his performance. Shocking

July 12, 2013, 18:19 GMT


he should have walked for the spirit of the game.

July 12, 2013, 18:12 GMT


Cricket is game of gentlemen, this was in past. It is no more game of moral values; sportsman ship is thrown out of the window. You will hear lame excuses i.e. it was empires fault not Stuart B.

July 12, 2013, 18:11 GMT


Yes. England has been the proponent of keeping up the mythical "spirit of the game." This is exemplified best during the Ian Bell affair when Indian last toured England. Now, it is conveniently hypocritical for them to forget about the spirit of the game, when following it would be a detriment. Same applies to all the English fans that crushed Ramdin under the same "spirit of the game." Cricket was meant to be a gentlemen's and gentlewomen's game. It seems that more than ever, there have been attacks on the field against the honest spirit that drives it.

July 12, 2013, 18:11 GMT


I can not say broad cheated. But its kinda thievery to me. Because unless you get caught , you are doing good. Risky but it worked. We really need to remove cheating. I understand not walking in LBW or grounded catch but watching ur ball caught clearly and u do not walk means is that you try to exploit umpires mistakes not play by rule. We really need 3rd umpire review or coach appeal and remove player appeal all together. We need appeal from people who have better view with camera. Player position and angles do not give them full view like camera. So i will remove player appeal 100% from DRS implementation.

July 12, 2013, 18:10 GMT


The law states that all players should play in the Spirit of the game, that is if they know they are out then they should walk and not wait for the umpires decision.

The umpire made a poor decision and was not backed up by Square leg, as an umpire if in doubt seek clarification for square leg as you work as a team. In transmitted games with TV coverage and the assistance of the 3rd ump. He could have and should have referred the decision for review. Poor Umpiring. Australia, needs to become better adapt as using reviews more wisely....

July 12, 2013, 18:08 GMT


Technically he doesn't have to walk unless the umpires say out. However, in this age of technology, millions around the world are seeing you and they all know that there was a blatant edge. If the batsman is unsure that's a different story, but if he is sure he edged, he should walk. By walking he will not only upheld the good spirit of the game, but also avoid all sorts of negative feedback. Win or lose, the game will stay unblemished.

July 12, 2013, 18:02 GMT


Based on the prior such acts and his history, I wouldn't have expected Broad to walk on this occasion. This is for ICC to come up with some kinda mechanism to deal with situations like these... This was not cricket...Everyone on the field, but for Umpire Aleem Dar heard or saw the nick...Whats the point in having technology when you cannot use it effectively?

July 12, 2013, 18:00 GMT


It would be in the Spirit of Cricket.

The Square Leg Umpire should have consulted with and if not sure the ump should have sent it to the 3rd Ump for review Just saying from an Umpire's viewpoint, as you are meant to work as a team this includes 3rd Umpires.

Umpires are losing there edge in international cricket and making poor decisions. The review system is there to get it right. Umpires should always review if uncertain.

July 12, 2013, 18:00 GMT


Even with all the sledging and abusing one should remember Cricket is a gentleman's game. All the legends of the games "walk" when they know they are out. Adam Gilchrist tried his best to make the habit of walking fashionable. He even walked in his last international game. Similarly Sachin Tendulkar is known to walk irrespective of the importance of the game.( as the worldcup match against SA shows). Stuart Broard is a talented Cricketer but he needs to follow the spirit of the game to earn respect. If not for the game one should walk as respect to the legends who do so.

July 12, 2013, 17:57 GMT


he should have walked,cricket is a gentleman game. he should have played it sportively.

July 12, 2013, 17:56 GMT


I believe that sporting spirit (no matter what the game is) should determine how it is played, and that a sport should be played for the joy and the passion of playing. In this case, I believe that Broad should have walked, but alas, one cannot fault him since no one walks, not even the Aussies who are now upset he didnt!! DRS does not eliminate the cheats, I strongly think every decision should be reviewed automatically for a clean game of cricket and to discourage cheating as a fine art.

July 12, 2013, 17:56 GMT


YES, he should have walked as it was a clear edge. As someone suggested there should be unlimited reviews whenever there is a confusion and someone thinks OUT or NOT OUT. Reviews always take less than a minute.

Reduce the innings break if they do not have much time! (take about 10, 15 mins from the break). We all enjoy reviews on TV let's share with the players and decision makers in the middle.

July 12, 2013, 17:55 GMT


In a series like Ashes which has a rich history and tradition, I expected better sportsmanship from Broad. Utterly disgraceful to see a player standing in such indifferent manner after having that mega-edge!!

July 12, 2013, 17:55 GMT


Yes, its a gentlemen's game and should be played with the same spirit.

July 12, 2013, 17:54 GMT


What did Dhoni do when the team has runout Bell? Sportsmanship, one should expect from a country which taught cricket.

July 12, 2013, 17:53 GMT


He should walked out. I think his runs after that incident surely doesn't justify the spirit of the game.

July 12, 2013, 17:53 GMT


he should hve. honest is something.

July 12, 2013, 17:53 GMT


Of course he should have walked. These players are not only role models for youngsters taking up the game, but are also meant to be playing within the spirit of the game itself. It's not like he didn't know he nicked it!

Winning is worthless if you have to cheat to do so.

July 12, 2013, 17:52 GMT


Oh, he so should have. I know irresistible the itch is, to hold your ground after a shocker by the ump, but I think what goes around, comes around. I'll not be surprised if he's on the receiving end of it, later this tourney. #Karma

July 12, 2013, 17:51 GMT


Difference between a boy and a gentleman!!

July 12, 2013, 17:51 GMT


for series like Ashes it would have been exemplary if Stuart Broad had walked....

July 12, 2013, 17:51 GMT


Broad should have walked off....Spirit of the Game

July 12, 2013, 17:49 GMT


Yeah he should have walked. he can hardly add 10 runs in the morning that's obvious so would have walked because that will make him gentleman in most of the eyes.

July 12, 2013, 17:46 GMT


Setting a bad example for kids...shameful...

July 13, 2013, 9:22 GMT


It is not necessary to walk. The situation warranted that Borad give as much support to Bell possible as they were staring at defeat if the remaining batsmen do not do that. So Broad was right to stay put. I am sure he will be feeling guilty some day, but at that moment, he just wanted to stay on and help Bell extend the lead. I think the third umpire should be given the powers to over rule such decisions as it was very much evident that Broad nicked it. ICC needs to take all this into consideratin before imposing DRS on all the teams.

July 13, 2013, 8:56 GMT


It seems the discussion is all about "personal choice" whether to walk or not. I think it's about following the laws of the game. There are two people who's job it is to adjudicate the rules. The Umpires. If they say you are out, then on your bike or you get fined for dissent. If they say you're not out then lucky you, you get a free life, make the most of it. Staying when you're given out and walking when you're not are both ignoring the decision of the umpire. No football player would tell a referee/umpire "no I'm not taking that free kick because you got the decision wrong, he didn't push me over". The UMPIRE decides if you're out or not - and you respect the umpire's decision - isn't that what we teach our children?!

July 27, 2013, 11:00 GMT


not vs australia he should not have since no one form aussie team would have walked .

July 16, 2013, 4:13 GMT


Speaking as an Australian, Broad did nothing wrong. English discipline over use of DRS won the game -- they had two left when Haddin feathered one, Aussies had none left when Broad snicked one. Walking is wrong since it undermines the umpires and breeds inconsistency. Will a player who walks a few times in non-critical or obvious circumstances get a 'good' reputation then not walk when things get tight? It is easier for the player to be honest all the time by not walking all the time.

And opposition captains don't call guys back when they are given out wrongly, so why should batters walk when they are given not-out wrongly? It is nothing to do with being a gentleman. It is fairest if nobody walks, since that is the easiest way to obtain consistency -- leave everything up to the umpires (and nowadays, the technology), and leave it up to them all the time.

July 15, 2013, 21:06 GMT


No broad should definately not have walked doesnt anyone remember when smith of south africa not just nicked the ball hit it hard was caught behind everyone including myself heard it that was viewing on sky but the third umpires gave him not out the excuse was they didnt have the mike turned up I didnt blame smith and i dont blame Broad i dont blame anyone if everyone walked thats different but these days if u did a census of modern day walkers about 10% at the most would walk and do walk

July 15, 2013, 11:53 GMT


No. Any cricketer who has played at any decent level knows that bad decisions will go against him at some point in his batting career. Why add to that by sacrificing your wicket by walking? If he had walked, England would have lost for sure, given the fact that Australia lost by just 14 runs. Having said that I also feel that fielders claiming bumped catches should not be seen as cheats. These things happen in the heat of the moment and branding a player with tags 'cheat' and 'bad sportsmen' is an unnecessary humiliation. There are three umpires with technology to aid them, let tem earn their pay making correct decisions. In this test we saw the umpires make some big blunders and if they are not good we'' have better replacements. The most decent players like VVS, Dravid and Sachin don't walk always. There is huge money at stake here.This is competitive cricket. Imagine what would have happened if Haddin had decided to walk when he was given not out? Clarke and CA would have killed him

July 15, 2013, 10:26 GMT


What Stuart Broad did is perfectly correct! thats how the game goes he had every right to stay at the crease.It doesnt matter how blatantly "out" it was.It was umpire's fault for not giving him out

July 14, 2013, 22:36 GMT


If everyone think Cricket is a gentleman's game ( and if it is ) you don't need 2 field umpires. You can have only the other ( 3rd ) umpire as the only one , who can fine any player , batsman who doesn't leave when they are out, fielder who claims a dropped catch, wicket keeper who claims each an every catch he takes, fielder if he doesn't signal when the ball to he's the boundary rope, and it goes so on and on. Why it applies only to a batsman. For a supporting player when the question is asked, when he says I don't know, it's accepted. For me the biased supporters are the same , not a gentleman.

July 14, 2013, 14:19 GMT


at the end of the day it is up on to the umpires to decide who to walk off and who to not. so its fair to wait to see the decisions. if the opponents are not happy with it then why the DRS for. if they wasted the DRS on some other decisions then its not Broad's fault. go on with it.......

July 14, 2013, 12:09 GMT


Ofcourse no,lets have a scenario where england have used up all their referrals and all of a sudden umpires gives a batsman, say pieterson batting on 80, out of nowhere. Will australia ask peiterson to come back and carry on?? Ofcourse they wont... What broad did might be against the sportsman spirit or so called self ethics but his innings was very critical for his team and might be the difference between winning and losing the test.. His decision not to walk has fetched critism from the cricketing faternity but if England wins he will be one of the heroes for his nation (and thats something every sportsperson play for).... Australia knew they have only two referrels and so they should have used them wisely, afterall even using the referrals well is part of the game strategy in modern day cricket......

July 14, 2013, 7:13 GMT


No. Did andrew symonds walk out during Sydney Test. Umpires need to judge and when your playing for the country, den Genuine Play to win is the Spirit of the Game...

July 14, 2013, 7:05 GMT


Yes he should have walked. While we are at it, why not dispense with the umpires, and leave the decisions solely on players and viewer's discretion. Surely, if this system fails, then 'spirit of the game' is to be blamed for players and audience not doing their job.

July 14, 2013, 4:21 GMT


You'll get given out when you're not, so stand your ground and let the umpire do the job he's there for. Change the DRS to the umpires, so one of the three can say ' I think that bounced, carried, heard a nick - let's have a look, just as they do with no balls. The current DRS shows players have no idea (Watson yesterday), give the umpires a chance to correct their mistakes. At least then we'll still be able to believe in the tenet - 'The umpires decision is final'.

July 14, 2013, 2:07 GMT


What if you need 4 runs required to win and you got only 1 wickets left, and umpire says not out on clear nick, I don't think you gonna walkout on those situations, so Broad dis his best not to walk out because he himself is not an umpire to rule himself out. So the bottom line is if England have taken big lead say may be 400+ or 380+ at that time, then Broad could have walked out, that partnership took them in the verge of first test win, if not then may be it was Australia in the verge of winning the test match.

July 14, 2013, 1:59 GMT


Against the Aussies, he did right by not walking. Against any other nation, he should have walked. The Aussies (except for Gilchrist) have time and again shown a lack of respect of the spirit of the game. Anil Kumble summed it up best in 2008 when, after India lost a test match to Australia in Sydney, he said ""Only one team was playing with the spirit of the game, that's all I can say."

July 14, 2013, 1:53 GMT


No way. Do you stay at the crease &continue to bat when given out even when you know you are not out? Nope, you go back to the pavilion. Same goes for the other way. Batsmen bat, bowlers bowl, fielders field & umpires umpire. Never does batsmen umpire. Broad did nothing wrong. And this from an Aussie!

July 14, 2013, 1:05 GMT


who remembers the Sydney test? Ponting not walking edging to ganguly. Symonds not walking edging to Ishant Sharma. England has done nothing wrong.

July 13, 2013, 21:22 GMT


not should wait for the empire as he is the final authority,,and these kind of things are common in the past as well

July 13, 2013, 19:44 GMT


No he should not have walked, after all he was playing for England and not for himself. I respect the players who do not walk because they know that they are going to be blamed by the media and the commentators but still stand their ground in the larger interest of the team.

One could argue that walking would serve the larger interest of the game of cricket but the point is the game of cricket is interesting because of the teams that are playing for pride.

July 13, 2013, 18:16 GMT


NO. If spirit of cricket says you should walk if you are out and the umpire gets it wrong, well then, in cases when umpire wrongly gives you out, you should stay at the crease!! Umpires are there to do their job, let them do it, however good or bad. We have seen numerous times a batsman given out when he is not actually out. DO we now say that in such a case, batsman should neglect the umpire decision and stay at the crease!! And Aussies complaining of this is appalling! Have they always followed the so called Spirit of cricket in their matches!!!

July 13, 2013, 17:57 GMT


Its a collective mistake of the umpire and faulty rules that allowed Broad not to walk off. Most of the players don't walk off, either because of personal gains or team gains. The 3rd umpire involvement needs to be increased, if he knows that the player has edged it or not he should straightaway inform the field umpire to correct the decision. Its better because he is getting paid a lot and he just gets to solve run out or DRS decisions whereas the field umpires need to focus on every ball every minute. They are bound to make errors. If the technology is available, use it in the best manner.

July 13, 2013, 15:20 GMT


One can't just blame Broad..rules need to be changed and third umpire should have intervened. Broad did not do right but he did not do wrong either as per the rule.

July 13, 2013, 15:18 GMT


No. I do not think Broad should have walked. After all he was playing for hos team and not for himself. He is entitled to do what is in the best interests for his team. A similar thing happened with Mike Atherton (now a commentator); he did not walk although he knew he was out because he was trying to save his side from defeat.

July 13, 2013, 14:42 GMT


It's not fair to blame Broad for not walking, nor is it fair to blame Australia for using up their reviews earlier either. The fault rests with the umpire. This whole UDRS is flawed. It would have taken all but 20 seconds for the 3rd umpire to contact the on-field umpires and overturn the decision. Why else is he getting paid to sit up there? Cricket needs an overhaul and has to learn to accept technology instead of being Amish about the whole thing.

July 13, 2013, 12:58 GMT


NO. He didn't have to. This is the way cricket is being played these days. If a batsman is not out and umpire gives me out what can he do other than simply walking-off the ground. consider this situation here Agar bowling a beauty to Broad that he just missed nicking and the bowl goes straight into the hands of wicket-keeper who appeals for a caught behind even though he knows the batsmen didn't nick it and aleem dar rises his finger and says out. How many australians would have asked Broad to stay and asked Aleem Dar to reverse his decision. None. Take my workd for this. You've seen Ponting, Clarke & co. ruling Ganguly out when they weren't sure themselves. You reap as you sow "Mate". And dear readers, I am just sying this because this is what is happening everywhere in the world. Ian Bell was not out in CT final against India but he was ruled out. So ???

July 13, 2013, 12:46 GMT


If an umpire gives you a wrong decision at that time what you will do, i beleive you cannot argue with the umpire. Out ot Not out umpires are the final authority.

July 13, 2013, 12:40 GMT


Broad does a lot of walking-back to his run-up

July 13, 2013, 12:26 GMT


I guess he got away with it. Michael Clarke doesn't walk and nor do any of the modern cricketers that I am aware of. I think this just highlights how rare Umpring howlers have become and that the review system is a good thing... Now if you don't use your reviews properly, whose fault is that?

July 13, 2013, 11:16 GMT


He needn't have walked. But then ICC should have banned him for 2 games, just as they did for Ramdin who claimed a catch when it was blatantly obvious that he had dropped it.

July 13, 2013, 11:04 GMT


I believe it is upon the batsman, if you say in the spirit of cricket and all..thats something which should come out from inside, next time broad might even walk, but england was in trouble so he did the right thing!

July 13, 2013, 9:47 GMT


Why should Broad walk? How does it matter if it was a thin or a big edge? Would Clark or Watson or any other Aussie have walked in that situation? I still remember Steve 'Blind' Bucknor not giving Andrew Symonds out in that infamous series between Australia and India down under. They should just keep quite and play cricket. They have no right to talk about 'walking'. On the other hand, the previous two incidents (Trott and Broad) have brought to light the still lacking capabilities of the decision review system as a whole. Thanks.

July 13, 2013, 9:46 GMT


Walking is a wholly personal choice. I personally look more negatively on the ones who do walk, because they gift a hard fought wicket to the opposing team. The priority in a team game should always be to the team. Walkers in my view are selfish and are looking more at how they are viewed then on the team situation. This incident is the fault of two people, Aleem Dar for getting such an obvious wicket wrong and Clarke for wasting his reviews on LBW's. Personally I think they should change it to LBW's aren't eligible for review by fielding captains to save them trying to get miracles from the system and keeping them only for howlers like missed edges.

July 13, 2013, 9:45 GMT


If the batsman knew that he had hit ball, it does not matter whether it is a faint nick or an obvious one. In Broads case, it was obvious. However had it been a faint nick, no one would have commented on him not walking even though he may have known that he had hit the ball. This is a debate on whether batsmen should walk if they know they are out, irrespective of how obvious it is. Nowadays, I would think that most batsmen do not walk.

July 13, 2013, 9:36 GMT


Take this scenario:

Batsman is actually not out but umpire has given him out by thinking that he has edged the ball to wicketkeeper.

Will Austalian team show sporting spirit by informing the umpire that batsman is actually not out. Will they allow the batsman to continue his game?

July 13, 2013, 8:53 GMT


Given the number of Aussie players on record as saying they would never walk under any circumstances, then no way should Broad have walked. Surprised how little criticism of the Aussies there is for tactical use of the reviews and gambling on LBW decisions. Had they used the review system as it is supposed to be (ie to correct obviously bad decisions) they would have had a review left for this, or Agar's LBW shout, and there would be no issue. If you live by the sword....

July 13, 2013, 8:49 GMT


Everyone watching TV and in the commentary box knew Agar was out when on 6, stumped. Australia all out 125. Why the hell should Broad have walked?

July 13, 2013, 8:40 GMT


Broad should have walked, yes. Heroes walk; legends walk; and every cricketer should aspire to that.

He will rightly attract criticism for not caring about the spirit of the game, and for not caring that he is a personal ambassador for his country.

He did follow the rules, though. He did the "minimum required" and it's sadly what a lot of other cricketers do in the same situation.

I don't think he should be punished, but I would like to see senior England figures having an open discussion about whether it isn't time to start doing the right thing.

PS - the Aussies must understandably be frustrated, so I admire them for being restrained in their public statements. Siddle had it spot on, and so did Glenn McGrath.

July 13, 2013, 8:32 GMT


No with the DRS rule in place there is absolutely no obligation for batsmen to walk these days. If the opposition captain wastes his reviews trying to get lucky with 50-50 calls, then they deserve to pay the consequences later.

July 13, 2013, 8:14 GMT


The main question is not Should Stuart Broad have walked or not?......the main question is 'should umpire had given him out or not?'.......Umpire knew that England have 2 reviews remaining and Australians were without review......so in such a situation where batsman (having 2 reviews in the pot) knows weather he is out or not,umpire should have given him out, because fielding team don't have any review left.If batsman knows he did not nick the ball,he will straight away go for review,otherwise he will walk. It is as simple as that. Umpire should have played little bit smart there.

July 13, 2013, 8:05 GMT


When you have too much of technology at your disposal, your senses are definitely take a break for long summer. Though, would have like seeing Broad walking, but still for the sake of greater good (depending too much on technology & becoming useless on the field), I think he did the right thing. & by the way, at that moment Broad must be thinking of getting as much runs as he can for his team & so he grabbed that extra life (given by Aleem Dar) with no regrets.

(I just hope ICC takes a lesson from this. If they want to have so much technology, better git rid of umpires, who are often at the receiving end....)

July 13, 2013, 8:04 GMT


No. The Australians have never done it in the past and will never do it in the future so what do they expect ? The always expect everything on a platter for them.

July 13, 2013, 8:00 GMT


As an Australian i am naturally upset he did not walk. However it is his entitlement to not walk and the issue is with the Drs, and the umpiring. The fact that the use of the Drs has become a tactic to maybe get a batmen out on a half chance, is a problem in its self. The Drs should be used to prevent a howler like this, and thus Clarke and the bowlers only have themselves to blame. Now to the issue of walking, just because one Australian i.e Symonds didn't walk in 2008. Doesn't mean all Australians stand there ground. I think in modern cricket almost all players stand their ground, as opposed to walking. The reason for this is that there is too much on the line, money, a series, and the hopes of a nation. So all in all no blame to broad, and if we want to see the spirit of the game reflect the way we all feel it should be instill greater importance upon the cricketing youth.

July 13, 2013, 7:51 GMT


Simple... Play against Aussie as they play against others...

July 13, 2013, 7:48 GMT


I would prefer it if everyone could be relied upon to be honest and walk, but let's face it the players have an unwritten code that you don't walk - sometimes the umpire gets it right and sometimes he gets it wrong - accept it and move on. The bat was very close to the keepers gloves, the ball definitely hit the gloves, the umpire wasn't sure whether it also hit the bat so he gave it not out. I'm not so sure as some seem to be that Trott wasn't out, based on an apparent deflection from the front on camera view. It is a real shame that the side on hotspot wasn't working as that would have clarified things, however it seems to me that without conclusive proof that the decision was wrong, the decision should have remained with the ump's original decision, so the Aussies got lucky and on the first innings performance who would Australia have preferred to get out Trott or Broad? I think the answer is Trott, and so Australians should stop whining.

July 13, 2013, 7:42 GMT


I don't know why this is even up for debate to be honest. Why should batsmen walk? In football, do we expect a defender who gets away with a foul in the box to tell the ref it's a penalty? More to the point, can you imagine Aussie's No.8 (or any of them) walking in the same circumstanes? It's crazy. There are two umpires there to make decisions and Clarke had 2 reviews in the event of them getting things wrong. The lesson here is to not waste your reviews early in the innings when playing in a tight test match. The comparison with Ramdin on this page is also ludicrous. Broad was the benificiary of a mistake, Ramdin knowingly tried to deceive the umpires. Chalk and cheese.

July 13, 2013, 7:10 GMT


"No" for this instance. We need to look back and think why do we need an umpire in the first place. When someone is bowled do we apeal or wait for the umpires decision? Umpire is there ONLY to resolve conflicts when there is doubt. I think that is the origin of "umpire". Yesterday's incident is as clear as Broad being bowled yet he didnt walk. Remember Cricket is a gentleman's game. Well I am all for walking. But not when you are playing agains the Ausies. They took away the "Gentleman" from the gentleman's game. Remember Gilchrist stumping Murali when he walked from his crease to congratulate the other batsman reaching his century? Plus many examples in other comments here.

July 13, 2013, 7:03 GMT


Well Australians started this: Had Steve Waugh walked off at al? Ponting to that matter. They always believed this was part of the game. I remeber them saying "sometimes you get a rough deal as a batsman and othertimes you benefit of it". In the long run it averages out. So Aussies, listen to your legends and accept the reality, try and win the game. Trott, Broad and Agar... all bad decisions. In the end it balanced out. Chase down 300+ and win the game.

July 13, 2013, 6:53 GMT


In a perfect world, all batsmen should walk when they know they're out. Umpires would also be able to know when a batsmen is out and there wouldn't be any need for DRS or any other referral system. But it's not a perfect world. Yes, Australia were hard done by because the umpire didn't give Broad out when he was definitely out. Everyone seems quick to want to blame someone for this, but it's no one's fault because no one is perfect. It's unfortunate, but that's how cricket is. It's a beautiful, mistake filled, passion inducing game, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

July 13, 2013, 6:40 GMT


I think there would be almost no true walkers in first class cricket world wide as the true test is how they react to a lightly feathered edge. Admittedly I also think the majority of players would have walked after getting as significant an amount of bat on ball as Broad did yesterday. So really it just comes down to the fact that Broad has more front than most. Ultimately it is the umpires decision and the players must respect that. So next time Broad gets either a bad decision as a batsmen or he is a bowler in a similar situation I would expect him to accept the decision without question. Having said all of that it must rank as one the 5 worst pieces of umpiring I have seen in over 30 years of watching test cricket and I would not like to see Aleem Dar in charge of any more tests in this series.

July 13, 2013, 6:40 GMT


No. As Aussies know that Umpires are for the decision making and players are right in holding their ground unless the Umpires rule them out. So no harm done by the batter. Leave the moral thing out, its well past that point.

July 13, 2013, 6:20 GMT


Why should he walk??? You are saying that he should have walked because everyone in the ground knew he nicked it! What about agar's stumping then? Everyone on and off the ground saw the replay on the big screen. The kid was stumped fair and clean!! Why did Lehmann and Clarke ask Agar to come back! Why didn't agar not walk?? Aussies just want the opposition team to do them favours.

July 13, 2013, 6:18 GMT


An ideal situation say he should walk out... but he didn't but its part of the game and do not forget that sometimes they gets out with out nick and they can't even complain as umpire has given him out so its part of the game and walking out from the ground its depended on players personal thinking and choice....Don't blame board because i doubt 80% percent players would have done the same in same kind of situation....

July 13, 2013, 6:12 GMT


No because many unfair decisions were made in Australia's favour. trott was given out LBW when there was an edge. Also Ashton Agar should have been stumped on 6 but he was given Not Out and went on to score 98. So why cant't England have some luck .

July 13, 2013, 6:08 GMT


I'm watching yesterdays highlights and just saw Clarke laughing at a ridiculous appeal for LBW when Broad got an edge on it. What's the difference? It's the Umpire's job to decide whether a batsman is out or not. Expecting all players to 'play within the spirit of the game' all the time is naive. This is the Ashes. Win at all costs.

July 13, 2013, 5:52 GMT


normally aussi team do the same, when they are playing tight match i don't think you should walk.

July 13, 2013, 5:50 GMT


NO he should not have walked, whether the game is in the balance or not. The umpire is there to adjudicate the game, not to be ignored. If you're batting and get a poor decision against you, you cant do anything, you must get off. That's the thing, you'll always get good and bad decisions. Clarkes decision earlier in the day to refer what seemed a very leg side LB shout off Patto cost him big time. Buts that cricket - you ride the highs and lows to hopefully see victory.

July 13, 2013, 5:38 GMT


For all those people who say Broad should have walked, I have only one question. Remember Sydney 2008. did Symonds walk after getting a thick edge? did Clarke walk after getting caught at slip? What about Trott's dismissal yesterday, and Agar's not out?

The Aussies should be the last bunch who should be whining about people not walking. LOL. Broad has all the right to stand his ground, considering the precarious position of the match.

July 13, 2013, 5:37 GMT


It is okay if he remained his ground.. Would a team call back if the umpire has given out and they come to know that he has not nicked...

July 13, 2013, 5:34 GMT


Why walk with professional umpires?. If you always walk when you know you have hit it, you also know you will be given out from time to time when you have not. Law of averages, wait for the decision. Someone like Adam Gilchrist I hope was never given out for edges but suspect he was. At amateur level however, you should walk and I always have..... I know on occasion I would not have been oven out bu the oppo would try pally say "thanks bat".

July 13, 2013, 5:30 GMT


Why should Broad have walked? Let us go back to Sydney 2008, did Symonds walk after getting a thick edge of Ishanth Sharma? Did Clarke walk after being caught at slip? And remember the grounded catch from Ponting.

So suddenly the Australians now want their opponents to walk? The game was in a such a precarious position, if I were Broad I would definitely stand my ground. The Aussies have no right to complain, after they Trott the way they did, and Agar was given not out when he on the line. Kepp going England!

July 13, 2013, 5:25 GMT


It has been taught in every cricket academy that you should have to wait for umpire signal and it's the main basic which every batsman learn's first. Every time walking away without umpire decision is like not respecting the umpire. Sometime umpire gives favor to a batsman and sometime to bowler but this is the thing which builds trust among umpire and the player. I know you are a good and respectable player but this happens sometimes due to intense pressure of test cricket and thick edges of modern cricket bats even batsman doesn't figure this out that is that was a nick or edge or not ?

July 13, 2013, 5:21 GMT


Now Clarke knows how it feels like if a batsman doesn't walk after nicking the ball to slip!!! # Sydney'08 ..

July 13, 2013, 5:06 GMT


why to walk when umpire didn't raise his figure. Its umpire duty to give out or not out. Sometime you get decision against you and some time in your favor. Let the umpire do his work. Its the Aussies who always leave decision on umpire , except one Aussies all of them have never ever walk.

July 13, 2013, 5:03 GMT


The Ramdin incident is completely different from Broad's case. Aleem Daar gave a howler of a decision and Australia had no reviews to overrule the decision. Why does Stuart Broad have to walk when there's umpires and technology around to fix the 'howlers'? When batsmen are wrongly given out, bowlers don't ask the batsmen to come back because they were wrongly given out. Isn't that also going against the 'spirit of the game'? That's not a valid reason to push the blame on Broad - tough luck that Australia wasted their reviews because that's what the DRS is there to eliminate. Everybody just needs to stop using the 'spirit of the game' argument because it's invalid in this case.

July 13, 2013, 4:59 GMT


No way ! against Australian team - never. As some said , this is a non-issue in Modern cricket ,but against Aussi , give me a break ! We will reserve talk about poor umpiring ,DRS, Sportsmanship etc etc for some other team... Aussies cricket team doesn't deserve those discussion , actually serves then right. My only (admittedly sadist) wish is ..why this was not a series decider test ..say 5th test of tied test series. That will hurt more. I can never forget infamous 2008 Sydney test , where Clarke blatantly lied and tried to defend that lie too. His edge was bigger than Broad's edge... and don't get started me on claiming that catch ( just can't get image of Ponting and Clarke , all acting surprised on decision as if it was a catch).

On other hand was interesting hearing to (senior) English commentators , almost all defending Broad's action. I thought only lesser mortal hold a grudge !

July 13, 2013, 4:55 GMT


Definitely NOT !!! Aus vs Ind Sydney 2008..HA HA..Aus deserves this !!!

July 13, 2013, 4:49 GMT


Of course not. It was Australia's fault in which they wasted reviews, and in this game, the umpiring decisions have gone the other way as well with Trott's dismissal and Agar's non-dismissal. In the end what comes around goes around, and all is fair. Broad was right in not walking.

July 13, 2013, 4:46 GMT


Cricket was a gentleman's game before the Chapples, Darrel Hair and some others, but not any more. It is a big business. The winner takes it all.

July 13, 2013, 4:42 GMT


No chance did he have to walk - his opposition have made a tradition of not walking and I don't want to hear about Gilchrist, out of 400+ players hes the only one that has ever walked and he even did it when he wasn't even out? Well done Mr Broad. Nothing better than watching the Australians suffering at their own hand, they should have saved their reviews. After all they were intended for decisions like this one.

July 13, 2013, 4:34 GMT


Broad need not have walked, nor any other batsman in my opinion. It is well with in the rules of the game to stand one's ground waiting for the umpire to make a decision. Just because his father is a match referee, he should not be expected to walk :-) Aleem Dar need to see just the expression on Broad's face to know he had edged it. Also,Broad is not known to be one who upholds the spirit of the game al the time. In fact, I would have been surprised if he did walk...

July 13, 2013, 4:25 GMT


I think Richard Hadlee's explanation for why he never walked makes perfect sense. Like all batsmen, if he knew he was not out he couldn't insist on staying. That alone should decide the issue. But in addition if, as a bowler, Hadlee knew he had got an edge that had been caught, he couldn't insist on the batsman leaving. For a bowler to walk, when many batsmen don't, would be plain silly. And i think Broad does bowl a bit, doesn't he? So he had two reasons to stand his ground.

Good game!

July 13, 2013, 4:20 GMT


People saying yes to this should remember and count themselves lucky that Johny Bairstow walked or does that good sportsmanship from the opposition not mean anything and it only means something if they don't walk. Bloody Aussies, your players never walk which is fare enough though, but you're complaining about it when someone else doesn't. Its not Stuart Broads fault that Australia had used up all their reviews. Australia was lucky to get the first 2 wickets so Stuart probably thought, well to heck with it, they have had all the lucky decisions and now its our turn. Well battered so far Ian and Stuart. I'm from New Zealand but will all ways support any team versing Australia, plus England are my second team. Go England, 90 more runs please then declare 9 out so Aussie have no momentum and then, Go Jimmy and Swann, carve up, 1-0 to England here we come.

July 13, 2013, 3:40 GMT


No, he shouldn't have walked. Batsmen who walk are on a hiding to nothing. Only under exceptional circumstances do batsmen ever get recalled from the stands once they've been given out incorrectly. If Broad walks, does Trott come out to replace him? (I'm Australian, BTW.) If you wish to swing bad decisions in favour of the bowlers, then good luck to you, but no batsman should be *obliged* to surrender his wicket in this situation. What's more, the controversy over this incident seems to be chiefly about its blatancy. So it's not so bad to stand your ground if you're only a little bit out?

July 13, 2013, 3:37 GMT


I'm an Aussie, and I say no, he shouldn't have. Gilly was a legend for walking, but it's not mandator. Fair enough. Of course, don't whinge if some Aussie doesn't do it and makes runs.

July 13, 2013, 3:18 GMT


No. I believe all batsmen should walk and it says something about your character if you have any sense of achievement for an innings when you know you were out. I used to walk when I played club cricket. However, I have no sympathy for Australia on this one. Does it really make a difference if you stand your ground for a big obvious edge rather than a fine feathered edge? If you know you've hit the ball and don't walk then you are leaving the call in the hands of the umpire so don't complain when it goes against you. Australia has tried to portray this myth of the tough Aussie battler who plays the game hard, mental disintegration, sledging etc and, for many of their players, not walking. So don't cry like a baby when it goes against you. You can't have it both ways. There are no shades of grey. Unless all players agree to walk when they know they've hit the ball then it is ludicrous to suggest that there is a moral imperative for one player to walk but not others.

July 13, 2013, 3:09 GMT


Neither Ricky Ponting nor Andrew Symonds did walk after nicking the ball in the same match against India in 2008. Anyone would not have walked except Gilchrist. Ricky Ponting, great Aussie captain once said that he respected Umpire's decision,and didn't walk.

July 13, 2013, 3:04 GMT


The Australians are largely responsible for lowering the bar as far as crickedting ethics go. Barry Richards famous quote is as apt now as it was then "An Australian only walks when his car has run out of petrol". But forgetting that entirely - and with difficulty because the Aussies track record is that bad - this series features the DRS. The DRS was brought in to enable teams to use technology to overturn blatant howlers like Dars call yesterday. First test, last Ashes series, England have to bat a day plus to save the game following Haddin and Husseys huge stand. A ball rears up, hits Cook on the shoulder and goes through to Haddin. The Aussies go up in unison. Cook is given out. Unpeturbed he calls for a review and the decision is correctly overturned. He goes on to a huge century and England save the game Thats what the DRS is there for. That the Aussies use it to chisel out 50/50 calls in another example of "gamesmanship" is the issue. Broad and Dar don't even come into it.

July 13, 2013, 2:58 GMT


by all means , this cannot be termed as unfair play . in my opinion , this had been a reversal of trott being given "out" wrongly . Moreover , its the Ashes . And when broad has got an opportunity too good to be missed , then why not grasp it with open hands and gleeful face??

by the way , these type of incidents are common for nearly every sportsman

July 13, 2013, 2:49 GMT


This is poetic justice. Clarke in the in-famous 2008 Sydney test hit the cover off the ball when he steered Kumble to a wide slip and still stood his ground and looked at the umpire to give out.Plus Ponting picked a dead ball from the ground and appealed for a catch.Both got away scot-free smiling. Broad should have walked against any team other than Aussie. Simple.

July 13, 2013, 2:43 GMT


No he shouldn't have walked. Walking is in itself ridiculous. You may know you have hit the ball but you don't know if you're out. There could have been an missed overstep by the bowler. A stray extra fielder behind square leg that no one noticed or even a slight kink and straighten of the arm (15 degrees slight). You as a batsman have no idea if the ball is legal and thus should never walk. otherwise you are ending your innings based on the assumption that the umpire has only missed your nick and nothing else. Umpires are there to do a job. The spirit of cricket has nothing to do with it.

July 13, 2013, 2:21 GMT


Talk about 'spirit of Cricket' is all good. In fact I admire people who walk, but in today's world no is required to walk. Batsmen still get howlers and are declared out. No one says that fielding side should call a batsman back if they see in replays that the ball nicked the bat before hitting the pad. So why should a batsman walk after nicking if the umpire failed to call it? In the spirit of fairness, if you are giving so much to technology then go by it. If it has to be between umpires and the players, then do not advocate use of technology. Then lets go by the umpire's decision and advocate if a player knows he is out he should walk. But similarly if a batsman claims he nicked a ball, umpire should also reverse his lbw decision. It has to be both ways for it to work. As of now, Broad did the right thing

July 13, 2013, 2:06 GMT


This is BAD for Ashes, BAD for cricket in general. Is winning ALL THAT matters? What could have been a very interesting fourth day chase has been all but marred by controversy.

No batsman should walk if THEY BELIEVE, they are NOT OUT, especially against AUSSIES.

Albeit, Michael Vaughan hit the nail on the head. Someone -maybe the third umpire Marais Erasmus or Match referee -Ranjan Madugalle, should have sent a message to Aleem Dar. In the end, the umpire's call is the last call. It is up to the umpire to make it the right call.

July 13, 2013, 1:25 GMT


Definitely No. Now the OZ get a taste of their own medicine. What about Symonds Sydney 2008

July 13, 2013, 1:24 GMT


I have no problem with Broad not walking. Plenty of batsman don't walk inc most of the Aussies over the years. They can't complain.

July 13, 2013, 1:23 GMT


No, as the Australians do not walk and wait for the Umpires decision, then Broad is totally entitled to do the same. The issues relate to the standard of the umpiring, the prudent use of the DRS by teams (ie wasting them in the hope of getting a decision) and also the limitations of the number of reviews (should each team be limited to two)

July 13, 2013, 1:03 GMT


Absolutely not. Batsmen don't get the opposite opportunity to not leave when they know they're not out, but have been given. Trott's being an excellent case-in-point.

July 13, 2013, 0:59 GMT


Thats why you have reviews. Use them wisely.

July 12, 2013, 23:30 GMT


The Aussies have absolutely no right to complain. Let's not forget Sydney '08, when Andrew Symonds, Michael Clarke and Ricky Ponting all smashed the leather off the ball and stood their ground. Besides, Trott was given out when he shouldn't have been, so I don't see any problem with Broad standing his ground.

July 12, 2013, 23:21 GMT


I'm surprized how many people said he should have walked if it was Australian I'm sure everyone would have been okay with the decision. Yes every batsmen should walk but it doesn't happen it's part of the game and that's why you have a umpire's. Challenge system in place to challenge shockers. Not to waste at any time. People say you should have more challenge's wrong. It slows down the game. 2 challenges is plenty they should be used wisely and if you get it right you keep your challenge. Poor decision making causes you to loose your challenges Full stop. England would have gotten on with the poor umpires decision without as much fuss as what Australia made. Sqaure leg umpire had no chance of seeing the edge and it's not up to him to advise the other umpire on the field if it was out. Esspecially if he was at square leg oppisite side of where the nick happen. But you should just save your challengers. It makes me angry how many times Ricky Ponting nicked the ball and wasn't given out!

July 12, 2013, 23:10 GMT


It's the umpire's decision. Could he have walked? Yes, like most other players, English and Australian over the years if GIVEN not out. Oh, wait a minute, like Adam Gilchrist would have. Can't remember many others on either side in recent memory, so he's within his rights to stay and is absolutely within the majority. I suspect Aleem Dar saw the ball kick right and think it bounced off Haddin's pad or glove only. What I don't understand is why the other umpire doesn't have the right to call for a replay if he's not sure. Couldn't we have two "umpire reviews" as well as two for each side per innings? And let's face it, this has not been a stellar game for umpiring -- look at the shocker that Agar had in his favor when the 3rd umpire botched the stumping call, not to mention the Root/Trott Hotspot shenanigans.

July 12, 2013, 22:58 GMT


As an Australian, no Broad should not have walked. This is not about Stuart Broad it's about Aleem Dar. He has been awful for a long time, who could forget the numerous mistakes he made during the 2005 Ashes. Thankfully Australia didn't use him as an excuse, but if you look back at the footage from 2005 he was horrible. He virtually ended Damian Martyn's career. It's time for Aleem to call it a day. He must have been the only person at Trent Bridge to think Broad missed that.

July 12, 2013, 22:47 GMT


No. He was entitled to wait for the umpire's decision - which is what Michael Clarke did in Adelaide in 2010. The only difference is that in Adelaide, England still had a DRS referral up their sleeve. Maybe yesterday was karma for Trott's DRS bungle?????

July 12, 2013, 22:37 GMT


No .. I mean who does that ?? If it would not have been an edge there and had umpire given it out , with England left with no reviews .. Would Australia had showed sportsman spirit ?? Never ..

Thats what Broad did .. Took advantage .. And mind it , this is ASHES ..

July 12, 2013, 22:24 GMT


Well Mr. Clarke - seem to have forgotten that you did EXACTLY the same thing in Sydney 2008, have you? The only difference was that your edge didn't even take the wicket-keeper's glove. That day, you tried to take advantage of a clearly over-the-hill Steve Bucknor who was having a horror test and was essentially the sole reason Aus won. Broad just repaid you the favor by taking advantage of the fact that you had no reviews left and he is immune to all questions from the match referee due to his daddy. Suits you well - what goes around, comes around. I wasn't really supporting anyone before the test began but I am now in England's corner for this test solely so that you and the rest of Aus know what it feels like when a big test match like this is handed to the opposition by the umpires...

July 12, 2013, 22:08 GMT


In an ideal world, you would expect people to walk. If I was in the Broad's position, I hope, I had the courage to walk. But, this is not to say it is essential that this spirit be followed by everyone. Especially in this day and age, with so much money in sponsorships, a place in the team, and media at play, a player is warranted his or her hesitation to walk. Laws are not created to give people the line of idealism. Laws are made to give people the line of minimum required behaviour. If anything over and above is observed, then that player is a better man for it. But, people who do not go over and above the minimum should be scorned.

I would like to see in the people who do vote yes, what they would actually do. It is very easy to be an armchair critic.

July 12, 2013, 22:06 GMT


The question is "Why *should* he have walked?". Because 99% of other cricketers don't.

July 12, 2013, 22:04 GMT


Ultimately, the decision should be left with the umpire. Things will tend to even out. How many decisions have gone against the batsmen over time? What I think should change is when a side should not lose a DRS referral when it is umpires call, as it was close enough to go either way.

July 12, 2013, 21:57 GMT


No. Umpire's make the decisions, sometimes bad one and you have to go.

July 12, 2013, 21:57 GMT


Maybe Australians should be reminded of 2nd Test between IND vs AUS, 2007-08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy . Serves them right. Need I say more?

July 12, 2013, 21:43 GMT


no; for anyone whos played the game from the lowest of leagues to test match cricket. the man in the white coat decides in or out not the opposition

July 12, 2013, 21:40 GMT


I don't think it's so much a question of sportsmanship as wanting to be sure that the umpire is satisfied he's out. In this days of reviews, either under DRS or by the umpires there is no need for batsmen to walk. In recent years many batsmen have been instructed to wait or return while the umpire checks whether a legitimate ball has been bowled. The problem is not what Broad did, but the poor decision of the umpire. England have been on the wrong end of a couple; they got the rub of the green here.

July 12, 2013, 21:36 GMT


There was no duty on Broad to walk. I know of no active test players who walk unless they know they will be given out. If you had suggested to Steve Waugh that he should walk when given 'not out' he'd have needed emergency treatment for laughing himself into a fit.

The comparison with Ramdin is simply not valid. Ramdin claimed a catch he knew he had not made. If Broad had said to the umpire "I didn't hit it", that would have been a comparable offence and he should be disciplined.

Merely accepting the umpire's decision is not grounds for discipline. Openly disagreeing with the umpire's decision IS a ground for disciplinary action. If a player simply accepts the decision, whatever it is, without attempting to impose his own opinion on the process, then there is no issue.

July 12, 2013, 21:36 GMT


Cant see any aussie having walked in such a crucial situation of a test match. Broad well within his rights. Aussies wasted both their DRS reviews, its their own fault !

July 12, 2013, 21:32 GMT


The difference between what Ramdin did and Broad did is fairly simple. Ramdin deliberately tried to deceive the umpire and Broad merely waited for the umpire to make a decision.

July 12, 2013, 21:27 GMT


Nope, should not have walked. If you think it is unfair, advocate the use of DRS by the umpires, at their discretion instead of this silly quota of x successful appeals.

July 12, 2013, 21:24 GMT


Hell No. Broady was fighting to save england and there aren't too many walkers in the game anymore. I would have had a problem if it was known "Walker" like Gilly, but the others who have not built a reputation and talk about walking etc, are well within their rights to stay. The umpire got it wrong and the reviews were not avaialable. Sorry mate, part of the game. You get some, some you don't.

July 12, 2013, 21:15 GMT


would michael clarke walk,, exactly.. broad,.. is entitled to stay,, his job is to nick it ,, its aleem job to make the right call

July 12, 2013, 20:52 GMT


In today's modern world, the batsmen has all the freedom to stand his ground. I don't think Broad committed any mistake by not walking. Almost all of the crickets would have done the same except few like Gilchrist, Tendulkar, etc. But my opinion is that there is a reason we call cricket a gentlemen's game and no better time to prove than this. The bowler has done the hard work of getting the batsman out and hence the batsman has to respect the effort and the reality and hence should walk. Sure, the batsman might end up loosing the game, but will forever be remembered for showing the true sportsmanship.

July 12, 2013, 20:21 GMT


Lets be clear Clarke nicked a bigger one in 2008 in Oz!! Did he walk?? So all this hot air about spirit of cricket etc??

If the umpire had called it broad would have walked, as he probably saw it "Well 3rd Umps has got two howlers wrong against us so I'm going to stand my groundand wait!!" Fair go I'd have done the same. Aussies didn't query DRS on Trotts or Agars decision so tough luck this time? Next time save your reviews!

Shows Pup needs a bit of practice with reviews!!

July 12, 2013, 20:10 GMT


When the Aussies have spent years refusing to walk then they have to accept it when an opponent chooses not to.

Ultimately it's going to make the rest of summer just a touch more spicy

July 12, 2013, 20:07 GMT


Stuart Broad was perfectly entitled to wait for the decision; it's not as if he leant on his bat or tried to coerce the umpire with body language. He waited 'innocently' for the decision, it somehow went his way, and that's life. To walk or not walk is a personal thing for any cricketer at any level. I was a non-walker when I played local league cricket - because that was my personal instinct. Broad actually deserves credit for the sheer audacity of looking totally unconcerned while surrounded by angry and disbelieving Aussies who utterly knew he'd hit it. I certainly don't blame the Aussies for being angry about it - but it's anger that should be aimed at how poor Aleem Dar's decision was, rather than Broad's part in it. For the Gilchrists of this world who do walk, I have total admiration, but those who don't walk are also exercising their right

July 12, 2013, 20:06 GMT


People do not walk in Ashes 'Tests and on this pklanet and this one was brilliant because Aus had no more reviews. Of course they did not appreciate the awefulness but as they had one clear off Erasmus himself with a monitor they have no reason to complain. Normally I am a bit of a gent but not on your life here.

July 12, 2013, 19:59 GMT


There has always been an accepted rule among England and Australian batsmen that you leave it up to the umpires - so long as you accept it when they incorrectly give you out. It's understandable Australia were annoyed, but they shouldn't get too much on their high horses - their batsmen have not walking for edges since time immemorial. In any case, Agar should have been given out on 6 yesterday, which would have resulted in a completely different game; nor should Trott have been given out first ball. England have suffered just as much as Australia in this test match.

July 12, 2013, 19:55 GMT


Australian's never believed in walking so lets leave the "Gentleman's Game" thing apart here. Let them face the same music what they have supported for so long."Walk when umpire gives you out".

Not to forget few individuals from Australian team who did walk like Gilchrist and Steve Waugh. Respect for them.

July 12, 2013, 19:53 GMT


Umpires are paid to make the big decisions. That being said Aleem Dar should have seen it and should have given Broad out, but he didn't. End of story. Cricket is no longer a "gentleman's sport". There is too much money involved. How many Aussies would have walked? I'm saying none. There is a lot at stake. What's the point of having Umpires if the player makes the decision for them?

Australia had used their 2 reviews. It's bad luck for them.

July 12, 2013, 19:48 GMT


I Think Stuart Broad did the right, I don't understand why Clarke is that much disappointed, did he forgot what he has done in a test match against India...

July 12, 2013, 19:42 GMT


No he shouldn't have walked. There is umpire to do the every decisions, otherwise why to keep umpire on the field. Trott would have made hundred forget about Broad!

July 12, 2013, 19:36 GMT


No need to walk. Part of the game. Its the batsman's personal choice irrespective of how blatant something was out or not.

Dunno if anyone remembers but Adam Gilchrist I remember once walked for a ball which he did not even hit. It was wide outside off, he hit the bat into the ground and it went outa the rough off to first slip. So there are pros and cons of walking.

As a cricketer myself I personally walk, but to be honest Brian Lara started it all. I have had times however especially for down leg side nicks, or ones way you simultaneously hit the ground (and possibly the ball too) where I don't walk.


July 12, 2013, 19:35 GMT


Broad is quite within his rights to accept the umpires decision, as a batsman must when unfairly given out. Maybe in the future Clarke will not be so quick to waste his reviews.

July 12, 2013, 19:25 GMT


I'm an Aussie and I don't hold it against Broad for not walking. What I find unbelievable is Dar not giving the decision. He surely cannot be that hard of sight nor hearing, he must not have been paying attention. This ICC umpiring panel is so-called 'elite'. The guys are on 6 figure salaries. Not paying attention is simply unacceptable.

July 12, 2013, 19:22 GMT


When you have a review system in place and you know how many are left, you have to exercise judgement in blindly calling for a review. In this case, Australia gambled and failed. An umpire is there to make a call, and in this case he called "Not Out". End of story, Broad should Not Walk. He is paid to play and has to abide by the Umpire's decision. Had the shoe been on the other foot, I think Australia would have done the same. Whether ethics come into play here is a separate discussion, bottom line Broad did exactly what would help his team to be in the best position they could ask for.

July 12, 2013, 18:52 GMT


truly shocking umpiring, but Broad did the right thing - ie wait for the umpire to make the decision

July 12, 2013, 18:47 GMT


Well he shouldnt have walked, aussies dont walk by themselves either, I remember michael clarke holding his ground after clearly edging it through to slips off anil kumble in that dubious test against india at sydney in 2008, and blatantly stated in press conferance that he would never walk back by himself because he represents his country and will wait for umpire to make call, and later in that test claimed a catch in the second innings which he seemed to have grounded when he rolled over to take the catch to dismiss saurav ganguly, now they are fuming when they get the taste of their own medincine..

July 12, 2013, 18:46 GMT


In watching cricket over the last two years, I have seen only 2 walk regularly - Brian Lara and Adam Gilchrist, and Kumar Sangakkara, sometimes. I can't think of anyone else being a walker. Why such a big fuss over Broad not walking? So..no big deal really. And please don't give me the 'Cricket is a gentleman's game' pontification. Cricket is run by the ICC, which is itself run by the BCCI. There is no way that cricket is a 'gentleman's game'.

July 12, 2013, 18:43 GMT


Reviews are for howlers, both the Aussie failed reviews were nowhere near being a howler, it is all Clarke's fault, no one else walks, why should Broad?

July 12, 2013, 18:42 GMT


Agree with Boycs on the radio earlier - there is a double standard here. Bowlers and fielders appeal for all sorts of stuff that they know is not out, to try and game the umpire (and in the modern game, maybe force their opponent to use a review). Their argument is that they are asking the ump to make a decision.

Yet when a batsman stands his ground and expects the ump to decide, he's a bad sport. Batsmen should start walking when fielding sides cut out excessive appealing (like that will ever happen).

July 12, 2013, 18:41 GMT


I don't think that's the issue here. Whether to walk or not is a personal choice. There is no right or wrong to walking/not walking. The issue here is the way umpiring is done, both the human ones on the field as well as technology and how it is used. If we are wanting to use technology to minimize human errors, why limit its use twice per team per inning? You might as well not use it because we still continue to have these bad decisions all over. I think I get know why Dhoni doesn't support it - it either needs to be there for every decision/doubt or not be there at all.

July 12, 2013, 18:41 GMT


Was it Ian Chappell who absolutely forbade batsmen to walk when he was captain? Ian Chappell vowed never to walk after Australia were thrashed by SA 4-0 in 1969/70 and made sure that his players did the same. That culture of not walking was introduced.

Who remembers thew shock of the Australians when Clarke apologised for not walking during the 2010/11. Australians don't walk and they certainly don't apologise for not walking.

Adam Gilchrist was one Australian who did walk but in his biography he states that the rest of his team made him feel selfish for doing so.

This is a non-issure in the modern game, but against Australia? Give me a break!

July 12, 2013, 18:36 GMT


Good sportsmanship go out of the window when we are talking about top-level, high-stakes sport. Why should Stuart Broad say that he's out when there is somebody standing at the other side of the pitch who is there to make that decision? You get decisions that go for you and you get decisions that go against you. That is the ebb and flow of test match cricket.

Furthermore, if the Australians were more prudent with their reviews earlier on in the innings, they would've been able to review this decision and get the right result. In the age of DRS, I have no sympathy with the fielding side whatsoever.

July 12, 2013, 18:32 GMT


A lot of people here seem to have forgotten that it was indeed Australia who achieved fame in not walking. Steve Waugh's team and onwards were adamant that it's the umpire's job to give the batsmen out. This was before DRS. Now, with DRS and two incorrect chances, the fielding captain should have shown better judgement in earlier uses of DRS. So, why should Aussies, or anyone else, suggest that the batsman should walk? I guess history repeats itself but not necessarily for the same team.

July 12, 2013, 18:28 GMT


I absolutely don't agree with the statement that Board should have walked. Batsmen cannot stand their ground when they know they have hit the ball onto their pads but are still given out LBW. The umpire's decision is final in that case. By the same token the batsmen has the right to stand his ground even if he knows that he has nicked the ball, since the umpire has not ruled him out. I do expect the cricketers who don't walk when they know they are out, to be repectful of umpire's decision and not show any dissent at the umpire even if they don't think they are out.

July 12, 2013, 18:26 GMT


Just like to add, the umpire's decision is final, he is the law. yes it was a mistake but thats what the reviews are there for, it is not Broad or Aleem Dar's fault that Australia wasted them earlier.

July 12, 2013, 18:25 GMT


No. Totally No. As once said by Matthew Hayden, these things even out at the end of the day. Trott was adjudged out in spite of lack of evidence and a clear deflection off the bat. So, Trott's dismissal is nullified with Broad being given wrongly not out.

July 12, 2013, 18:24 GMT


As a club cricketer and bowler at that, having been the recipient of many a decision being given not out when the batsmen had clearly nicked it, i understand the annoyance but many a times i myself have been given out when batting despite not being no. Cricket is a game played by individuals, a game full of little nuances and human error and the fact that Broad stood his ground is part and parcel of cricket. He's a non walker but it is the 1st test and you can guarantee he will be getting plenty of chat from the aussies throughout the summer.

July 12, 2013, 18:22 GMT


No need to walk. Umpire is there only for the sake to follow up with the match. What was broad's mistake. Even australian would have done this as they are known for these type. Its a tot for tat for the mighty Aussies who have done it repeatedly against other countries....

July 12, 2013, 18:20 GMT


He didn't need to walk. DRS failed. DRS is not an on-field tactic, it is there to eliminate howlers such as this. Umpiring decisions should be given to umpires, not players.

1) Umpires should be able to review close decisions.

2) The 3rd umpire should be able to hold up play to review howlers such as this. This is not the first time this has occurred. Last summer it happened to both SA and Sri Lanka.

July 12, 2013, 18:20 GMT


Broad edged that bowl clearly and he should have walked to keep the spirit of this game what is best known as Gentlemen alive. But on the other hand there's also a second chance in cricket, being a bowler he clearly knows that this will happen to him or might have happened to him several times in the absence of review system, so he preferred to do the same and anguish the bowler. Its simple, you have to use your tactics carefully,Aussies wasted on those earlier two reviews that costed them Broad's fiasco.

July 12, 2013, 18:19 GMT


NO,he shouldnt have walked..broad is not responsible for the umpire`s error..yesterday trott paid the price of wrong decision by 3rd umpire..same happened in case of agar`s stumping when he was batting on 6 runs..this is cricket..some decisions will go your way..some decisions wont go your way..why should a batsman walk away when he is not called back in case of wrong decisions against him?its even stevens..broad should ride his luck..

July 12, 2013, 18:18 GMT


The convention of walking went out with the introduction of DRS. Why walk if there is some technical reason you are not out that DRS may bring to light is the current thinking of the modern batsman. The fact that Aussies had foolishly used their challenges allowed Broad to stay as the final arbiter without DRS is the umpire. He made the mistake not Broad.

July 12, 2013, 18:16 GMT


The Aussies don't walk - and they have only themselves to blame - each team has 2 reviews and if you waste a review on a poor choice like the Bairstow lbw review, it may - and in this case it did - come back to bite you in the butt. DRS is there to correct errors like this. Umpiring decisions are up and down - yesterday's stumping - which almost everyone except Murray Erasmus thought was on the line and therefore out, is a good example. In terms of umpiring decisions, you know, as does any level of cricketer, that you'll get some good ones and some bad ones. Not many errors as egregious as this, but that's cricket. No doubt that Stuart Broad has had, and will get, both as his career continues. This was his lucky day.

July 12, 2013, 18:14 GMT


He is challenging ICC by not walking, and yes ICC deserves this for not taking a stand on defining 'in the spirit of the game'. How can the law be interpreted differently from the way it was done in Ramdin incident. Wake up ICC.

July 12, 2013, 18:10 GMT


Without DRS, I would have said yes - because the players are required to uphold the spirit of the game and help the umpire out by being honest. But that old chestnut has been thrown out the window a long time ago.

with DRS, what Broad did is entirely within the laws of the game. If any, it shows that the implementation of DRS is under the scanner, given that most players don't walk. They should be made to walk, since technology has done its part in irreversibly changed the psychology of the players.

July 12, 2013, 18:09 GMT


Absolutely not. The umpire gets paid to judge whether the ball took the edge or not. Its not a decision for the player for the make. Pundits, commentators and spectators should respect the umpire's authority, regardless of whether they agree with him or not. Stuard Broad did the right thing. In any case, umpiring is being phased out in favour of DRS and this might be the reason why howlers are becoming more frequent.

July 12, 2013, 18:09 GMT


No. walking is not the answer. Appropriate use of DRS is perhaps the best answer. Dar should have checked for the nick with the third umpire. ICC should see this as the right moment to provide such an option to on field umpires. australia are appealing for a catch not a LBW here. Any team using its reviews is fine and a very thin line exists between using them and wasting them.

So Dar should have checked with the third umpire and given it out. In the end it all evens out because perhaps Root received a dodgy decision.

July 12, 2013, 18:07 GMT


'Walking"was once a long-established tradition in English county cricket and 'non-walkers' were considered unsporting. However, the custom in Australian cricket, from even as far back as batting great Don Bradman's time, has been to wait for the umpire's verdict.

July 12, 2013, 18:04 GMT


There is no reason for Broad to have walked. There is no shame in it. Why do we have umpires, and technology supporting them, if we have to talk. Then let us remove umpires and ask the players to play under oath. It was unlucky for Aussies that they had got done with all their reviews. It was the umpire to be blamed in such instances. Mistakes can occur but not to this level

July 12, 2013, 18:03 GMT


Walking or not walking is a personal decision and should be left to the integrity of the concerned player. Having said that , ICC should put in a procedure which ensures that such howlers do not happen. After all DRS was supposed to eliminate such howlers

July 12, 2013, 18:03 GMT


For sake of gentlemen game he should have walked away but now cricket is no more gentlemen game and no cricketer in the world do that especially Australians like Clark did vs India in 2008 so he did right thing to stay there. Also it was umpire decision to give him out and he made mistake.

July 12, 2013, 18:03 GMT


This concept of "the spirit of cricket". It`s nonsense, anyone who knows the history of the game understands that.

Surely accepting the decision of the umpire though, that is one of the most fundamental cornerstones of the game? Broad did just that. However, the ICC brought in DRS which is a totally legitimate way of questioning the umpire`s decision, the very thing you are taught as a child not to do!

There is no way of getting decisions 100% right, but DRS improves things. Clarke gambled with his referrals and lost.

There is nothing more annoying than rubbish about the spirit of the game. Not walking is just one of the many ways players try their luck in regards to the laws - ball-tampering, claiming catches...there so are many. And they`ve all existed since the game was first played.

July 12, 2013, 17:59 GMT


Nope. As a batsman you get one chance, and sometimes you're given out when you're not - you hope it all balances out more or less, but you certainly don't want to go tipping the odds against yourself by walking. Let the umpire do his job, and concentrate on doing yours.

July 12, 2013, 17:59 GMT


First of all "Self walking back" is a sportsman's spirit but whenever it comes in terms for Aussies, they never let away any moment that can cause them harm. So basically it is tit for tat against the country like Austrailia. Best example u can take Ind vs Aus, Sidney where Legend Ricky Ponting went with a lie about catch of Ganguly or Symonds not walking back after nicking two times and even after appeal of the against team.....

July 12, 2013, 17:54 GMT


He is not cheating if he is waiting for the decision of the umpire. However it is against the spirit of the game.

July 12, 2013, 17:54 GMT


He is in my Ashes Fantasy XI so no..:P But on a serious note he should have walked keeping in my the spirit of the game.

July 12, 2013, 17:53 GMT


No is the answer, although I don't agree with what he did. England had a hundred bad decisions go against them this game, Broad felt the keeper's gloves touch his bat, and likely (but not an absolute certainty) something off the bat, but stayed because he was genuinely expecting to wait for the umpire make a decision. But when given not out, he should have walked off. That has never been the standards he or almost anyone else plays cricket to. Now of course he has the absolute right to stand his ground, and won't get punished by the ICC anyway for it because of this plain fact. Australia should not linger over this, England have had more than their share of bad decisions go together this game, and this is Australia's first.

July 12, 2013, 17:53 GMT


Stuart Broad didn't do anything which was against the rules of Cricket. Many batsman over the years done the same thing. Its the umpire who is at fault not the batsman and the blame should go to him rather than the batsman. Luck is part of Cricket, get use to it and move on happens to everyone the good and the bad. Cricket is a team sport not a sport where you help at your opposition.

July 12, 2013, 17:52 GMT


No I don't believe he should have. Walking is a personal choice but it doesn't make Stuart Broad a cheat or anything, anyone else in the same position probably would have done the same thing. I agree that in the spirit of the game that everyone should walk if they feel they are out. But all of this wouldn't have occurred if Australia hadn't wasted their reviews earlier in the day. This is what the DRS system is made for, eliminating the howler, and had Australia had any reviews left, the decision would have been overturned.

July 12, 2013, 17:48 GMT


That's why we have DRS. Don't the umpires get enough support already? Why should Broad walk. he did nothing wrong. The fault is purely on the umpire who just didn't do his job right!

If the fielding side ran out of reviews, its only because they didnt use them wisely. Eliminate howlers they said. This was one of them and boom you had run out of reviews

July 12, 2013, 17:45 GMT


Simple, the umpire gave him NOT OUT, by walking you are embarrassing the umpires. It is up to the umpire to raise the finger NOT the player. Boycott made a very good point that walkers will not walk on 0, they will walk on 150 raising the bat and smiling to the crowd. A bowler does not walk after a howler goes in their favour, they do not go "That was not out, come back batsmen!". They are professionals not part timers.

July 12, 2013, 17:44 GMT


Walking is a personal choice, and has nothing to do with how blatantly 'out' it actually was

July 12, 2013, 17:43 GMT


No. Ideally of course, all players would walk and it's commendable when they do. The essence of the problem though, is that Australia had wasted their reviews. The DRS is there for exactly this situation. It's widely known that close decisions usually stay with the on-field umpire. Australia chanced two reviews and lost them. They then got a howler which they could do nothing about. Tough.

July 12, 2013, 17:41 GMT


No; ask Steve Waugh, Allan Border or Ian Chappell.