World T20 2014

Broad fined for umpire criticism

Alan Gardner in Chittagong

March 23, 2014

Comments: 69 | Text size: A | A

Stuart Broad was unhappy with the umpires with lightning in the area, England v New Zealand, World T20, Group 1, Chittagong, March 22, 2014
Stuart Broad expressed his dissatisfaction with the umpiring as lightning forks appeared in the sky © Getty Images
Enlarge
Related Links

England captain Stuart Broad has been fined 15% of his match fee for comments following his team's rain-affected defeat against New Zealand.

England lost on the Duckworth-Lewis method and Broad questioned the timing of the umpires' decision to take the teams off the field. He pleaded guilty to a Level One charge of publicly criticising match officials.

Lightning was seen above the ground in Chittagong before five overs of the New Zealand innings had been completed - the amount required to constitute a match - but Aleem Dar and Paul Reiffel elected to keep the players on until the arrival of rain, which came after 5.2 overs, a decision that Broad described as "decidedly average".

It has also emerged that the ECB has urged the ICC to revise its regulations and ensure that players are taken off at the first sign of lightning in future. Decisions on when to suspend play due to adverse weather are currently in the hands of the umpires but Giles Clarke, the ECB chairman, has asked ICC chief executive, David Richards, to institute a rethink.

"We have been having discussions of a very serious nature," Clarke told the Daily Mail. "These were extraordinary circumstances, and the umpires were in a tricky position. But if that had been a golf tournament, everyone would have been off.

"I completely see Stuart Broad's point. The safety of both the players and the crowd should be paramount if there's an electrical storm. If it happens again, they're almost certainly going to have to go straight off."

Broad's comments were, according to match referee Javagal Srinath, in breach of section 2.1.7 of the code of conduct for players. "Umpires are the final judges of the fitness of the ground, weather or light for play," Srinath said. "Weather decisions are the most difficult to make, but the umpires make the best decision possible, taking all factors into account.

"Such public criticism is not good for the spirit of the game. Mutual respect between players, match officials and administrators is paramount to the game of cricket."

Broad was visibly displeased after the game, although he did his best to remain "polite", saying that he thought the delay had put the safety of players and the crowd at risk. He received the backing of his team-mate Michael Lumb, who has experienced the frightening effects of lightning while growing up in Johannesburg.

"I think Stuart covered it in detail but, from a personal point of view, you don't mess around with lightning,'' Lumb said. "There are lives at stake. It was literally right above us and it was pretty scary.

"It would have been a different story if we were waking up this morning talking about guys who were struck by lightning. If we were on a golf course, we'd probably have been taken off. It's a serious thing and it's not to be messed with. I'd have been quite happy to go off the field earlier.

"It's something we need to look at and address. You do play in certain parts of the world where there will be lightning. It's a big factor and something has to be done."

Alan Gardner is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

RSS Feeds: Alan Gardner

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Marktc on (March 25, 2014, 8:45 GMT)

To make the laws clear, the ICC needs to understand lightning. If there are thunder clouds about, even if the sky is clear, a lightning strike can occur. (Good example of this is a soccer match in Johannesburg a couple of years ago). In fact, this is more lethal that the normal lightning. The bolt can travel up to 40 KM (25 Miles). But there has to be consistency and it cannot be left up to the umpires for an on field decision.

Posted by JG2704 on (March 24, 2014, 22:29 GMT)

@ Jaffa79 on (March 24, 2014, 15:35 GMT) To be fair - re the Oval test , the 2 teams made for a tense finish by positive play/declarations. Although it was kind of an anticlimax no one could have thought we would have got anywhere near that sort of finish early in the day

@ jackiethepen on (March 24, 2014, 8:56 GMT) Bell scored a further 22 runs which proved to be crucial in the match score and it wasn't as though Bell was walking off for tea thinking that was the end of the session when a couple of players saw an unlikely opportunity

Posted by JG2704 on (March 24, 2014, 22:29 GMT)

I think it's a difficult one. The umpires should be partly commended for making a result possible but there was a safety issue here - it wasn't just a rain thing. As I said before Broad should have come off as soon as BMac withdrew from action when Broad was in full stride regardless of whether he thought there was danger out there. BMac made the 1st move anyway. It's no good moaning about it after the event.

Posted by Jaffa79 on (March 24, 2014, 15:35 GMT)

I can see both arguments really. I think as cricket fans, we can all acknowledge when these things go for you and against you, so the petty mudslinging just makes you look childish. More importantly, I think all cricketers and umpires should really try to stay playing and finish games as best as possible as it really damages the sport when games are abandoned. That final Ashes Test at the Oval is a particularly apt example of this. I have no issue with the umpires ruling but like all fans, just hope it is consistently enforced.

Posted by wapuser on (March 24, 2014, 13:57 GMT)

Hard luck to England!!! They played so well. I think it should be 10 over to reach a result. How can u decide a match in 5 to 6 overs?

Posted by Dadders on (March 24, 2014, 13:47 GMT)

Do the match-day umpires owe a duty of care to the safety of the players (and spectators in the crowd), or a duty of care to the sponsors and tournament organisers who want to see the game "fulfilled"? When those duties are at odds with each other, safety MUST come first

Posted by Cricsnake on (March 24, 2014, 11:32 GMT)

Feel sorry for Broady. This D/L method for such shorter games ruins the cricket. There should be a rule for that, at least 12-15 overs is a must for both teams. In a T20I anything can happen in just one over. For ODI's too, there should be certain limitations to apply D/L. IMO this game should be considered as a draw (both teams get 1-1) and NZ has the NRR advantage of their quick runs. Many matches played by SL in the last couple of months were close combats and decided in the final over & how could you decide within 2-3 overs? If you see SL vs SA or Aus/ Pak match what will happen if rain occurred within the mid-overs of the chase? The result will be the opposite. No offence to NZ and my congrats to them. But feel so sad about England though I'm a Sri Lankan. Good luck for the next matches.

Posted by   on (March 24, 2014, 11:04 GMT)

In Queensland grade cricket we have a simple and effective rule for player safety in regard of lightning. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that it came from the ICC. If thunder is followed by lightning within 30 seconds, you take the players off for 30 minutes. If there is another 30/30 occurrence within that 30 minutes, the cessation of play continues for another 30 minutes from that point. Its called the 30 30 30 rule and it works.

Posted by BionicBowler on (March 24, 2014, 10:54 GMT)

In the interest of consistency we should not be extrapolating an outcome when only 25% (5 overs of 2nd innings) is reached. It should ONLY be considered a game at the 40% mark (i.e. 8 overs in of 2nd innings) like they do in ODIs. It is a matter of only 3 overs (!!) and would be much more accurate in determining outcomes through statistical projection. The current system is crass and needs reviewing. It also adulterates the D/L method, making it look stupid, and unfair when in fact it is evidence based science, backed by past data. For the longer ODI a great alternative to D/L would be to adopt 5ives format of the game...Please consider ICC??? Google 5ives for those new to this idea.

Posted by luggang on (March 24, 2014, 10:38 GMT)

The ICC is a disgrace, fining Broad for this is a an attack on free speech, if I was him I'd return home

Posted by Hatter_Mad on (March 24, 2014, 9:10 GMT)

Sad to see the usual set of "England bashers" allowing prejudice to over-rule what is, at the end of the day, a very simple & honest opinion.

We know D/L favours the short-term performance and doesn't take account of factors that are encountered towards the end of an innings (less able batsmen, the pressure of staying with the RRR). Reduce the numbers down and the unfairness is magnified - basically it comes down to a question of "can Williamson and McCullum out-hit Jordan and Bresnan when the former are in the 4th over and the latter are in the 20th".

This is not connected to the lightning issue but you have to say that it is deeply unfortunate that the umpires stayed on when several huge bolts struck adjacent to the ground (as repeated several times on TV) yet felt a couple of balls later it was ok to leave the field. England can feel somewhat aggrieved but I guess the umpires would say that they did not know what the weather had in store.

Drop the England-bashing, it's boring.

Posted by jackiethepen on (March 24, 2014, 8:56 GMT)

India_boy - still moaning about that 4-0 loss to England in 2011? By the time Flower and Strauss went to the India dressing room, Bell had already scored 137 and saved the game against your fellas. It was the principle that mattered. Something Dravid recognised. There are quite a few Indian fans who still moan about Bell being reprieved and ignore his marvellous century. Wouldn't happen to Kohli though. I'm really looking forward to India returning this summer. You have some marvellous batsmen. Should be a good contest. England will only have a scratch side apart from Cook and Bell, Anderson and Broad.

Posted by Indfan01 on (March 24, 2014, 8:15 GMT)

@Ednann. I 100% agree with you. DL to be abolished and matches to be continued for full 20 overs in T20 matches.

Posted by spanishwestindian on (March 24, 2014, 8:00 GMT)

I totally agree with Merny and Ednann. D/L has damn all to do with cricket as I understand it and should be scrapped altogether. There could be reserve days to complete a match as there used to be in the distant past. AND of course safety of players is always first!

Posted by Ednann on (March 24, 2014, 7:41 GMT)

The DL method is a farce and should be discontinued. A side after scoring 190 runs losing to the other side playing only 5 overs is really unacceptable since the game may really turn after 15 over. Don't you see the result of Pak Vs Aus match? If not (icc officials) then remember "Even the last ball can deliver the victory" and thank God this rain thing not happen in Pakistan's match surely we loss through DL but prays with us. Please modify this DL thing. No doubt umpires did a right decision on right time. Safety become first.

Posted by jackiethepen on (March 24, 2014, 7:37 GMT)

Perhaps those who sound so sanguine about being in a field during an electrical storm have never been near lightning. Lightning can be very spectacular but no one goes into a middle of a field to watch it. Usually standing under a lightning conductor is the best way. In parts of the world where there are a lot of electrical storms you will find that high buildings or buildings standing alone have conductors for a very good reason. Lightning takes the easiest route to earth so if someone is standing in a field it won't go to earth it will hit the players. What do they have on their feet? Spikes! Nice one. Remember every bit of lightning you see is striking somewhere on something.

Posted by bouncer709 on (March 24, 2014, 6:28 GMT)

Remember 1992 WC, SA and 22 runs on 1 ball.... S.Brod you are very intelligent you are talking of safety of spectators...but if umpire stop the match due to lightening, they still have to wait for the weather to clear, so spectators will remain in the stadium, they have nothing to hide there, so umpires did right thing for their safety completed the match early in 5 overs and let the the spectators go home..... However, I think 5 overs are not enough for any match to be declared, it should be at-least 10 overs....

Posted by mirandola on (March 24, 2014, 6:20 GMT)

There is a number of would-be 'clever-clever' comments on this board, but the real issue is clear and deadly serious:- do you keep players on the pitch in dangerous conditions simply to get a result of some kind, where there is no provision for a replay or shared points; or do you immediately take them off under potentially life-threatening conditions, whatever the state of the game? The answer is the second, the Umpires were desperately at fault here, and the ICC needs to come up with some ruling that makes it plain that the sensible course of action is also the 'correct' one.

Posted by Merny on (March 24, 2014, 6:16 GMT)

As has been proved often, the D/L method is never the best way to decide the outcome of a match. It has left a bitter taste in the mouth of many. However, being a neutral observer, I believe, NZ was lucky and smart. Lucky, because they won the toss and smart because they kept ahead of the scoring rate knowing the weather might have the final word. In Englands case, Broad should have brought to the notice of the on field umpires the dangers of playing in an open field with an electrical storm above, and insisted on safety of the players being his concern. Maybe the ploy could have worked. After all, the safety of all players and officials, comes first. Anyway, on a brighter note, hope the weather keeps fine and we have more thrilling episodes of cricket in the T20 world cup.

Posted by BackStreetBowler on (March 24, 2014, 6:02 GMT)

Instead of Broad, it might have been McCullum in the eye of a controversy if England had won. Broad might in fact have praised the umpires for being brave enough to allow completion of 5 overs to ensure a result despite the storm!!

Lets be honest, lightning shmitning, its all about who wins in the end.

Posted by IHateBIG3 on (March 24, 2014, 5:59 GMT)

Big 3 is big 3. We saw what happened in the last match between Ind/WI. One run controversy that was eventually decided in favor of big 3's team. It will go on and on. Had this been a player of non big 3's team, he would have been thrown out of the tournament right away.(Shakib ul hassan is not the only example vs Kohli's 'famour' finger)

Posted by India_boy on (March 24, 2014, 5:11 GMT)

Maybe Broad should have taken Bell along to NZ's dressing room, and requested for some favour?

Posted by bull01 on (March 24, 2014, 4:33 GMT)

When Broad made the comment after the game I suspected he would get fined. He is not captain material in the sense that he doesn't have the ability to control his tongue. He just sounds like a poor loser. Is this about the lightening or is it about the game not being stopped 3 balls earlier so that they could get a draw? Let's not forget that the umpires making the decision were also out on the field and not indoors - I am sure that they value their own lives also and wouldn't jeopardize that in favour of a New Zealand win! Pretty sure if it was the other way around, Broad would have been happy to bowl a few extra deliveries.

Posted by TheBigBoodha on (March 24, 2014, 3:59 GMT)

It's hard to fathom some of the comments here. Certainly logic plays no part in them. If India lost a game like this after 5 overs with one wicket down the BCCI would have them booking a flight home if the umps didn't reverse the decision.

Can you imagine what Kohli wold do and say if he was Captain? lOL.

BTW I am Australian. I just find the pettiness of some of these comments to be tiresome. No wonder Broad was POd. It is totally farcical that one team can be declared a winner in the scenario that played out in this game. It should have been declared a draw and no other rational or objective stance can be justified.

Posted by drnaveed on (March 24, 2014, 3:43 GMT)

@whatawicket: agreed with you . but you have to take it (the result) in the end . As one friend rightly pointed out that at 5 overs mark , which was minimum required for the result in this particular match , at a point , after 4.5 overs ,there were chances for NZ win ,ENG win or even a TIE .but broad lost the match for Eng with his bowling , and now blaming the umpires (who made sure that atleast 5 overs to be bowled to ensure a resut in the match) .so , Eng too had equal chance to win the match ,had broad or jordan had taken a wk , or had restricted NZ on those 3 final balls. broad always cries. here , in BD , winning a toss is very vital for a team to decide ,considering batting first and putting a big total on the board, or bowling first , when there is less effect of dew , as compared to batting second. so ,like broad , should every toss losing captain start crying that the conditions are not the same for the 2 sides during the match.no wonder , he will at some point later here.

Posted by Dax75 on (March 24, 2014, 3:29 GMT)

What an absolute joke, The players should have been taken off the moment the lightning was near the ground.

Posted by himanshu.team on (March 24, 2014, 3:15 GMT)

I wonder what would have he saide if England actually picked up a couple of wickets before the rain and went on to win the match. I am sure there would have been no talk of 'messing with lightning' or 'lives being at stake' then. Its shameful for players and captains in particular whining about umpires decision after they have lost a match. Be brave Broad and criticize and bad decision that actually went in your favor (like your massive edge given not out). Till that time no one outside of England will pay any attention

Posted by Siddharth.Vignesh on (March 24, 2014, 2:56 GMT)

England lost because NZ played calculated smart Cricket. So there should be no complaints on that. But without a doubt it's a late decision by umpires which made the situation worse for England. The final outcome of the incident is not surprising at all, because I don't believe Srinath is a person who is capable to take right decisions at this level.

Posted by Oscar465 on (March 24, 2014, 2:02 GMT)

Strange to see Broad willing to walk

Posted by Mansions on (March 24, 2014, 1:17 GMT)

The DL method is a farce and should be discontinued. A side after scoring 190 runs losing to the other side playing only 5 overs is really unacceptable since the game may really turn after 15 overs. In case rain or bad light stops further play the teams should be awarded one point each. Ramamoorthy

Posted by spinkingKK on (March 24, 2014, 0:09 GMT)

It is not the lightning law which needs to be changed. It is big mistake to consider 5 completed overs to constitute a T20 match. I think the whole rain-affected match rule needs to be changed. A T20 match result can change dramatically in little over 2 overs, as we saw the other night when some defensive batting by the Australian captain and the Aaron Finch put them under immense pressure and eventually made them lose a match they should have won. So, I believe at least 15 overs needs to be bowled to be considered a match. If 15 overs are not completed, the match needs to be played again on the next day.

Posted by wapuser on (March 24, 2014, 0:05 GMT)

I would like to congratulate the umpires for their actions in the Eng v NZ game. They allowed play to continue as long as possible and a result emerged. No one got hurt and everyone except Stuart Broad can feel like a man and an entertainer. Lovely to see the show must go on mentality once more - sadly lost on golf. I love Broady but he got this wrong. I think 8 or 10 overs should be required fur a match or preferably finish it the following day. It is a World Cup for Gods sake! Really bad luck for England which seems to dog them in these World Cups. Lets back them all in the next 3 games.

Posted by bobbo2 on (March 23, 2014, 23:42 GMT)

The point re lightending is arguable but I think NZ would have won anyway as they bat very deep and had a good start. I doubt England would have defended that score given NZ were already 40 plus for only 1

Posted by pkXI on (March 23, 2014, 23:37 GMT)

The English players were performing well that game. I understand his disappointment as they were in a winning position and next thing New Zealand had a seemingly easier target.

Posted by phermon on (March 23, 2014, 23:29 GMT)

Sports administrators can be so precious. They should know that respect must be earned. Courtesy is one thing - respect is quite another!

Posted by Kulaputra on (March 23, 2014, 23:23 GMT)

If an Asian captain had made that comment or tweet, suspension is automatic. Why is Broad allowed to get away with this little

Posted by PACERONE on (March 23, 2014, 22:38 GMT)

I am tired of hearing complaints from Broad and the ECB.If Broad and the ECB were so concerned about the safety of their players why did they not remove their players from the field and forfeit the game?Earl Weaver of the baseball Baltimore Orioles had a safety concern for his players and disagreed with the umpires decision,so he pulled his players from the game and forfeited the game.ECB and Broad are only interested in the decision been in their favour.No one was injured in the 5.2 overs bowled.They could be hit by lightening sitting in the pavilion or walking to their cars/buses.Golfers have metal clubs in their hands which make it more dangerous.

Posted by JG2704 on (March 23, 2014, 22:34 GMT)

Always felt that cricket (among other sports) denies freedom of speech.

Having said that , Broad should know the etiquette by now and if he doesn't he needs to learn. Also maybe he learns to be a little more savvy as a captain as he was as a player when he didn't walk.

If memory serves me right , when the first thunder noise/lightning bolt was heard/seen BMac had already smoked Broad for one six and I think only needed 1 run off the other 2 or 3 balls to be ahead of DL. Now surely no one (even inc Broad) would have expected 2 or 3 dots off the rest of that over. Bearing that in mind I wonder if Broad should have said to the umpires about the danger of the lightning etc and wasted time til they went off. Sure it would have wasted time and made him (more) unpopular with the crowd and he would likely have been fined but probably fined less and also England would not have lost the game. He would have had a fair case too - being the dangers of thunder and lightning

Posted by nothingnew on (March 23, 2014, 21:53 GMT)

I am not English fans , But i believe Umpire should have taken steps to stop the match when Lighting comes. I have seen few one player died bcos of the Lighting playing footy . It is not fair considering duckworth lewis when over no.5 + i would believe at least after 10 th to 15th is best . but It is shame of umpire . Umpires did complete wrong thing.

Posted by Murali_the_greatest on (March 23, 2014, 21:23 GMT)

As usual, Broad's method of expression is forthright and opinionated. However on this occasion, he's right... cloud to ground lightning is lethal and unpredictable. Given that it was pitch black night time, you couldn't even see where the clouds were, to tell how close the threat was. Every year in Asia and Africa, lightning claims many lives during these potent pre-monsoon electrical storms. It's a game of cricket at the end of the day and the players are understandably not queuing up to become another statistic! Win or lose, Broad is questioning why the players were not taken off immediately. Umpires have a duty to safeguard the players - it was poor officiating to leave the players out there for a whole over with fork lightning dancing dangerously around the ground.

Posted by RoBoBobster on (March 23, 2014, 20:47 GMT)

why not build margins into DL - e.g, 15 runs either way at 5 overs, 10 runs at 10 overs etc - may not be perfect but could still be effective - maybe even with less than 5 overs with 3-4 wickets/ 20 runs an over not sure of full facts, but if both captains wanted to go off, Umpires should respect that.

Posted by lockey25 on (March 23, 2014, 20:44 GMT)

Cricket is going to become a joke in near future. BIG 3 will be the demise of it.

Shame on broad and shame on ECB for backing him

Posted by Monjur_Elahi on (March 23, 2014, 20:42 GMT)

And Broad still Tweets about the fine, saying its a 'shame'. Now, what would ICC do?

Posted by mshyder on (March 23, 2014, 20:31 GMT)

Seriously! It is a clear case of sour grapes. Wonder what Broad would have said, had England won the match. Rain is a different issue but going off because of scare of lightning - really, very childish. Has any one ever been stuck by lightning while playing national or international matches. I don't think so. So in reality no one was put in danger by the umpires.

Posted by danmcb on (March 23, 2014, 20:31 GMT)

I am getting bored of cricket, administrators and managers with the accountants are driving every last bit of character and spirit out of it.

Posted by danishsyed88 on (March 23, 2014, 19:55 GMT)

What's there to be fined about? He just expressed his opinion!! Just saying that the umpires decision were average isn't a bad thing. Why then aren't commentators fined for expressing their views of a bad decision by the umpires??

If that's the case, even batsmen should be fined for expressing their frustration after umpires give them out when they aren't

Posted by Thushaa on (March 23, 2014, 19:39 GMT)

The Umpiring level will be really tested in this BD Tournament. I think it has to be closely monitored, as the Decission making so far, has been not good. The same day game SL vs South Africa, a clear Edge from AMLA when he was just starting up in the SA inning, that was totally NOT GIVEN. And what a HOWLER..!! How can these level of umpiring go, just UNNOTICED. GOOD thing Broad has the courage to Speak up.. and then we can have a open conversation at least.. As a NEUTRAL FAN, I have no problem with ECB and Broad's comments, and Umpiring standards has to be questioned all the time. Its not just their Day JOB, But their full time job and are getting paid well to be in this INTERNATIONAL LEVEL. THUMBS Up for Stuard Broad..

Thusha, India.

Posted by espncricinfomobile on (March 23, 2014, 19:29 GMT)

The ICC can't have any guidelines in place in relation to lightening which is ludicrous. If golf courses have the technology then a cricket tournament can.

Posted by MaddyRuleeeeez on (March 23, 2014, 18:47 GMT)

I don't think Stuart Broad would cry like this if Brendom Mcullum had got out in the process of hitting the six he hit on the final ball of Broad's over, and England had won.The fining looks completely justified to me.

Posted by TheGecko on (March 23, 2014, 18:27 GMT)

I think the words "decidedly average" were what went against him. Could have kept out of criticizing the umpires and maybe expressed his colorful opinions about how the lightening could have struck him and how dangerous it was and whatever. Should know where to draw the line.

Posted by SLMaster on (March 23, 2014, 18:18 GMT)

Why didn't Broad take the team off the field? If he is concerned with the saftey he could have the team off the field. No one could argue. One could punish but can't take the ethical part of it. I think he is blaming umpires and weather for the loss. He thought D/L was in favor of them because they scored well. But, honestly it is not fair to England when they score well. 5.2 overs are too short too decide the result. It should be at least 10 overs. Because one over can change T20 game up side down.

Posted by rickla on (March 23, 2014, 18:17 GMT)

What a load of nonsense from the Broad haters. As a NZ fan I am extremely pleased that the umpires did what they did. As we have seen today from Australia, it is not that easy maintaining a high scoring rate after the powerplay has finished, especially as the ball gets softer on these low slow wickets. Chasing the highest T20 score on the ground would have been tough. I am sure that if the lightning had arrived only after 6 overs - then the umps would have taken them straight off - they must be incentivised to keep teams on until there is an official match. Also typical of the sanctimonious and laughable ICC to fine someone for making a comment about an "average" decision - the umpires got it wrong, and Broad was actually (for him) fairly calm and measured.

Posted by myStraightTalk on (March 23, 2014, 18:16 GMT)

ITs complete wrong decision by umpire. Umpire and even common fans should be educated about lighnings. I have seen scenario when people where killed very very far away from ligning and even when they were no visible lightning to them. PLEASE LEARN THE FACT ABOUT LIGHNINING BEFORE TALKING..

Posted by whatawicket on (March 23, 2014, 17:58 GMT)

not sure if some of the countries posting on here, would still feel the same if the thing happens to their team. also were a team still have to score at 120 even with 9 wickets still to fall you can see when the game gets close towards the end anything can happen, you only have to look at mess the Aussies made of their game when batting 2nd

Posted by southwood on (March 23, 2014, 17:44 GMT)

Lightning does not have to be overhead to be dangerous. it need only be in the vicinity of the ground. There are examples of crcket authoriries producing guidance about what to do if lightning strikes.Some adopt a 30/30 rule( in this case it should have been 20/20 in view of the length of the game) e.g. In the event of an active thunderstorm or electrical storm in the immediate vicinity of the ground, play is to cease IMMEDIATELY and all players and umpires are to find safe shelter without delay. (Safe shelters include cars or large substantial buildings with electric or telephone wiring and/or plumbing that provides a safe current to the ground. Players and others should not remain in open areas or take refuge beneath trees.) Play should not resume less than 30 minutes after the last lightning strike. To determine what is Immediate players and Umpires should follow the “30/30” rule. Play should stop when flash to bang count is 30 seconds or less, since this indicates that light

Posted by bonaku on (March 23, 2014, 17:17 GMT)

Funny that Board is let off with very light punishment. This is not his first offence.

Posted by Hrolf on (March 23, 2014, 17:14 GMT)

Outrageous that Broad has been fined! Irrespective of the results of the game, the players were clearly in danger. The front of ground strikes passed over them as they continued to play. The umpires made a mistake by keeping them out their and for the judiciary to back up their poor judgement sends a bad message about the dangers of lightning to people watching the game. Must we wait until someone is killed before such attitudes change?

Posted by Wedee on (March 23, 2014, 17:01 GMT)

Agree with the safety, preventive measures and what not that everybody is talking about. But England blaming the loss (via D/L method) on the umpire's decision is entirely unjustified. In an counter argument, one can easily blame Stuart Broad to have lost the game.

At 4.5 overs, the result was 3-way - 1) score a run and NZ win, 2) dot ball and its a tie, 3) a wicket and Eng win. Think of it as the virtual last ball of a 20 overs innings. Broad vs B McC.

Broad lost the 1 ball contest. Plain and simple.

Posted by McTSA on (March 23, 2014, 16:36 GMT)

Cricketers were struck by lightning in Johannesburg South Africa not too long ago. At least one of the lads was unfortunately killed. Broad criticism is completely unfounded and he probably deserved much sterner sanction.

Personally I find him to be too immature to be captain of any side at the moment. Poor choice of captain by ECB plays into the hands of opposition.

Posted by Frill on (March 23, 2014, 16:29 GMT)

can we all bookmark this story for when the opposite happens to broad and then he comes out and says the better team won anyway and sometimes luck is good etc...

Posted by swingstowin on (March 23, 2014, 16:18 GMT)

What Broad is saying doesn't make any sense. Having said that I think its a bit harsh to fine Broad just because he expressed his opinion. Is that not allowed. I dont think his words were insulting to anyone.

Posted by lolt20underH2O on (March 23, 2014, 16:11 GMT)

The lightning strike in question was clearly visible in camera shot, it was behind the bowlers arm, hence McCullum pulled out of the shot when Broad was into his run up. So, not directly overhead at all. People do love to stretch the facts, especially if they feel aggrieved or hard done by. The umpires were right out in the middle too, I'm sure if they'd felt threatened, they and the players would've been off... in a flash.

Posted by drnaveed on (March 23, 2014, 15:58 GMT)

he should have been fined much more than this. agreed with @srini.n comments. had Eng side been on the other hand , they wouldn't have had feared the lightening than . i think , they should try to concentrate more on their own performance in the field , rather than looking here and there to find excuses for their loss in the match .

Posted by Naked_Cricket on (March 23, 2014, 15:56 GMT)

No doubt players must keep out after first lightening struck . We don't know where hit the next one.

Posted by willsrustynuts on (March 23, 2014, 15:52 GMT)

srini.n. Wonder away, it makes no difference to the outcome and is immaterial.

The problem is not with the umpires or the players. It is with the use of D/L in this format of the game.

Posted by md111 on (March 23, 2014, 15:50 GMT)

I'm pretty sure Broad and McCullums views would be straight reversed if the game had finished the other way (McCullum may not have put as forcefully as Broad but would be the same). I don't expect England to do anything anyway nut I just hope there isn't a directive to the umpires get these games as a match even with lightning around, not until someone is struck will they have another look?!

Posted by willsrustynuts on (March 23, 2014, 15:50 GMT)

The problem is not so much with the umpires (although they 'gave' the game to NZ by staying on for a couple of more balls) but with the D/L Method. Entirely inappropriate in this form of cricket - 5 overs is nowhere near enough to qualify as a completed game, no matter how sophisticated you think your algorithms are.

Non-cricketing folk will look at this and struggle to understand how you can call this sport.

Posted by CodandChips on (March 23, 2014, 15:30 GMT)

I doubt that the lightning was " literally right above" the players and umpires because the umpires would not have risked player safety just to get a result.

Glad Broad got fined because to me it just appeared he was making excuses. England lost and New Zealand were the better team. Broad was fined. Fair enough. Now let's move on.

Posted by srini.n on (March 23, 2014, 15:26 GMT)

Wonder what Broad's reaction would have been, if England had been batting and could have sauntered to a win in 5 overs. Would he still have wanted the umpires to take them off at 4.4 overs ??

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Alan GardnerClose
Tournament Results
India v Sri Lanka at Dhaka - Apr 6, 2014
Sri Lanka won by 6 wickets (with 13 balls remaining)
India v South Africa at Dhaka - Apr 4, 2014
India won by 6 wickets (with 5 balls remaining)
Sri Lanka v West Indies at Dhaka - Apr 3, 2014
Sri Lanka won by 27 runs (D/L method)
Pakistan v West Indies at Dhaka - Apr 1, 2014
West Indies won by 84 runs
Bangladesh v Australia at Dhaka - Apr 1, 2014
Australia won by 7 wickets (with 15 balls remaining)
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days