13 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow often do bowlers appeal for LBW knowing it's not going to hit the stumps. If the umpire gives it out, do they retract the appeal?
why didn't he walk, he was out, is this what we have come to expect from test cricket, pumpkin eating?
What is the difference?
The problem is that, if some people walk and others don't, then the game is not being played on a level playing field. So have 2 choices.
Make it obligatory to walk, and punish offenders that don't. That is unworkable, as the batsman won't always know whether he is out. In 'fine' cases, he will say he was wearing a thick pair of gloves, didn't hear the edge etc etc.
My solution would be to make it an offence to walk before the umpire has given you out, and to make it an offence to influence the umpire in any way, either for or against the dismissal.
This would leave it as entirely a matter for umpires.
By the way, Robbie, hasn't this test shown why test cricket, at its best, is so much better and more engrossing than T20? The match has shifted, twisted and turned, on a daily, even on a session, basis. Even now, I can't be sure we will win, though the odds are massively in our favour.
13 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderMy friend and i hope i am not overstepping protocol in terming you as such, let us ask ourselves the question, what was it that made Englishmen great? Was it not a sense of fair play? Is this propensity for honesty not the very reason why Englishmen have been revered throughout the earth? Has it not spawned proverbial utterances on its very basis, 'that's not cricket', when a situation is deemed to be less than virtuous? Take this away and you are in danger of losing your identity as Englishmen! What will become of you? Shall you degenerate to a nation of tricksters, utilising cunning machinations and slights of hand? May that never be the case, your sense of fair play is what has made you great, please I could not bear to see it erode to the point where you have no moral sensibilities, conscience salved over and now defunct.
How often do bowlers appeal for LBW knowing it's not going to hit the stumps. If the umpire gives it out, do they retract the appeal?
What is the difference?
The problem is that, if some people walk and others don't, then the game is not being played on a level playing field. So have 2 choices.
Make it obligatory to walk, and punish offender s. Even now, I can't be sure we will win, though the odds are massively in our favour.
In view of the seriousness of this, it is apparent to me that Broad should have walked, did he not feel the ball edge onto his bat? I think he did but refused to exercise conscience and walk and thus has brought the game and the very reputation of Englishmen everywhere into disrepute. The shame of it.
Let us consider what would have transpired had he walked. Admiration for his honesty and sense of fair play would have permeated the air, the entire stadium and all listeners would have been filled with a sense of well being, all is well in England.
I would not say that its more or less engrossing, each have their own virtues, I simply dont buy into the snobbery, after all, good blitz players also happen to be excellent under classical time controls as well.
13 Jul 13
4 edits
Originally posted by thaughbaerwho was that man, let us laud his virtues! not the nineteenth century, then clearly you will not acquiesce to a duel with French foils for this outrage! 😛
I've done a lot of travelling last 2 days and been listening to a lot of Radio 5 Live. If memory serves only 1 ex-cricketer has suggested he should have walked. It's not the 19th century anymore.
I see it was Agers, indeed, a gentleman and a cricketer of true spirit!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23293960
There is nothing within the laws of cricket that says Broad had to depart. But when he chose not to, it became an issue for the spirit of the game.
13 Jul 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYeah Aggers. Boycott saw nothing wrong. He was disparaging of the so-called 'walkers' he knew who would only walk if they'd scored a century and would sit tight if on a duck. Even Gough said on TalkSport he would walk unless there was one run in it. If you're gonna walk you've got to do it whenever. So Broad stayed because the Ashes were at stake.
who was that man, let us laud his virtues! not the nineteenth century, then clearly you will not acquiesce to a duel with French foils for this outrage! 😛
I see it was Agers, indeed, a gentleman and a cricketer of true spirit!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23293960
There is nothing within the laws of cricket that says Broad had to depart. But when he chose not to, it became an issue for the spirit of the game.
13 Jul 13
Originally posted by thaughbaerI also note that Michael Clarke did not walk either.
Yeah Aggers. Boycott saw nothing wrong. He was disparaging of the so-called 'walkers' he knew who would only walk if they'd scored a century and would sit tight if on a duck. Even Gough said on TalkSport he would walk unless there was one run in it. If you're gonna walk you've got to do it whenever. So Broad stayed because the Ashes were at stake.
You have to admire the Aussies. Whinge like mad about Broad, and then curiously silent when their captain does the same.
I love the Ashes.....
14 Jul 13
Originally posted by thaughbaerHe cannot be trusted to uphold the spirit of the game, my trust in England and all things English is more than severely tarnished, its almost irreparable.
Yeah Aggers. Boycott saw nothing wrong. He was disparaging of the so-called 'walkers' he knew who would only walk if they'd scored a century and would sit tight if on a duck. Even Gough said on TalkSport he would walk unless there was one run in it. If you're gonna walk you've got to do it whenever. So Broad stayed because the Ashes were at stake.
14 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyIf cricket is a game which reflects fair play at its highest level, he should have walked irrespective of whether the umpire gave him out or not, why? because that would have been in harmony with the, 'spirit of the game', now sadly being eroded by expediency, so called 'ethical dilemma' and references to 'what other players do'. Hard to respect that.
Because the umpire didn't give him out. End of debate.
14 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBrad Haddin also didn't walk.
If cricket is a game which reflects fair play at its highest level, he should have walked irrespective of whether the umpire gave him out or not, why? because that would have been in harmony with the, 'spirit of the game', now sadly being eroded by expediency, so called 'ethical dilemma' and references to 'what other players do'. Hard to respect that.
However, more to your point, the time when cricket was played according to the spirit of the game never existed. It is as real as the idea that WWII pilots were all from public school, spoke like David Niven, and calmly sent a message back to their childhood sweetheart Doris to 'be strong, my darling' as they went down in flames over enemy territory.
It's nice when it happens, but let's not kid ourselves that the past was this universal utopian paradise of Corinthian Casuals refusing to take or to defend penalties.
14 Jul 13
In the end it was poor captaincy. Although I didn't see them it would appear Australia frittered their referrals away on marginal decisions and could have made Broad walk had they used them more wisely. Cook kept them up his sleeve and waved off Haddin. That Broad should be the scapegoat for poor captaincy is misapportionment ( is that even a word ? ) of blame.
14 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderSigh, obviously you attended the Terry Thomas school for scoundrels! Haddin is not an Englishman, he cannot be expected to be guided by the same moral principles! The chivalric code has been torn asunder, replaced by a Realpolitik system of unprincipled expediency, its downright unEnglish and unmanly I say!
Brad Haddin also didn't walk.
However, more to your point, the time when cricket was played according to the spirit of the game never existed. It is as real as the idea that WWII pilots were all from public school, spoke like David Niven, and calmly sent a message back to their childhood sweetheart Doris to 'be strong, my darling' as they went down s universal utopian paradise of Corinthian Casuals refusing to take or to defend penalties.