To walk or not to walk?

Top Secret: You would have to then remove greats like Tubbs, Hado, Punter and the Twins as they too have stood their ground after nicking it. I think only Gilly & maybe Martyn have walked in recent years. What about over appealing when not 100% sure it's out. Our guys were masters at influencing umpires during Tubbs/Waughs captaincy. We would look impish to the rest of world cricket to cry foul now. Clark just needs to be better at DRS & our top and mid order needs more runs so that howlers are less of an issue. BTW Trott may have gotten a howler too so both teams missed out.

This is the isue that no-one ever seems to want to talk about re walking - fielding sides can appeal with impunty, even when they know it's not out, and it's always the batsman that gets painted as the bad guy. How many times do you see batsmen have to leave when they weren't out ,as they have to accept the umpire's decision, but suddenly if the decision goes for them they are cheating? BS. Walking is the biggest non-issue in the sport. Fielders ask the question, the umpire makes a decision, and (DRS aside), everyone cops it. As long as he accepts it when he is given out there is nothing at all wrong with what Broad did, and as Australians who have had to listen to years of English higher-moral-grounding about walking this should be a welcome illustration that we're all playing by the same rules, we shouldn't be hypocritically whinging about it. Australians don't do it - the Don didn't, and anyone who thinks Gilly "always" did it is fooling themselves - and nor should we. DON"T WALK!!!!

What Broad did was akin to Henry in his handball that led to Ireland losing to France in the World Cup Qualifier. He clearly handballed it and played on as if nothing had happened. Whether you think it's fair enough or otherwise, all of the English papers were up in arms about it (pun intended). They've been very quick to vindicate Broad. A measure of the man can be seen in his very unsporting attempt to lose an over before lunch on the fifth day.

Sorry the word act is missing in my above comment. "Now when a person falsely accuses someone of having done a criminal act when he fully knows that the other person is innocent, such person can then be punished for lodging a false case".

One most important thing is that everyone is supposed to be equal before law. And that should also be the case in cricket. When a fielder claims a grassed chance and is punished then so should be a batsman when he stays grounded when he is fully aware that he is out. However it is the umpire's job to decide whether to give a batsman out or not. So that way a batsman can be given benefit of doubt. But then if a fielder claims a grassed chance then also it is the umpire's job to give the decision. So the rule which applies to the batsman should apply to the fielder also. So either both are cheating or both are right to put the ball in the umpire's court. Now we can also look at the same issue in a different manner as follows. Assume that a person is accused of theft or any other crime. He is still given a chance to prove his side in court. And if he is finally found guilty he is punished for his crime only. He is not punished for trying to prove himself right in court when he very well knows that he is guilty of theft. That logic applies to a batsman waiting for the umpire's decision. He is well within his rights to stay put. Now when a person falsely accuses someone of having done a criminal when he fully knows that the other person is innocent, such person can then be punished for lodging a false case. That is comparable to a fielder who claims a grassed chance. If a fielder takes a clean catch but knows that there was no nick, in such case he is still right to appeal. However he cannot appeal for a grassed chance. This is the main point of difference in the incidents involving Broad & Ramdin.

In the end, Michael clarke abused his power in attempting to gain advantage by jagging a 50-50 decision and it has cost the Aussies. Drs is so captains can avoid the howler and clarke abused his drs, twice, very poor leadership. I can't see how we can whinge, broad stood his ground, Steve Waugh would have done exactly the same and did so and we all appaud his greatness. Broad looks like a tosser by not walking and will have to live with his decision but if the poms win by 1 run, well done. Australia introduced this aggressive win all costs in cricket. How quickly we forget.

I have a bit of a laugh with the strength of an appeal, questioning of the umpire with no review. Umpires should be treated ALOT better and the DRS taken out of the hands of the players and into the hands of the 3rd Umpire to review all wickets beyond reasonable doubt, ie able to know on the first pass of replays. No stop in play to wait, if its turned around bring back the player. Then umpires will be free to judge the play with confidence. The no ball should be an automatic buzzer or something like the tennis.

I mentioned this in another post too, but if you think that Broad is a cheat then Michael Clarke is also a cheat. Clarke clearly edged the ball to short leg in the 1st test at Chennai in the recent Ind-Aus series when he was in the 30's and went on to score a century. The umpires are there to make the decisions. For the record I'm an Indian and I felt that Clarke was well within his rights to stand his ground then and so is Broad now. It was not an edge that went directly to slip. It deflected off the gloves of Haddin, so it was not as bad a howler as many here are claiming. The bigger issue is the case of Denesh Ramdin in the recent Champions trophy. Where he was suspended for claiming a grassed chance. Having looked at that video, Ramdin did not appeal, he just did not tell the umpire that he dropped the catch. So why was he punished. It's just a different set of morals for fielders which is not fair.

"Broad didn’t fake anything." Sorry Pat, that came across incorrectly....what I meant was not that he faked anything, but by standing there when he clearly hit the ball, in my mind ,and maybe I am a bit old fashioned in this regard, he is indicating to the umpire that he didn't think he hit it.

DRS makes all the difference now. It's now part of the tactics of the game to have a review. I used to be very vocal about walking, now not so much. If the bowling side doesn't have a review to catch umpire's mistakes then they have misplayed their tactics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/8184987/The-Ashes-2010-Australia-shocked-at-Michael-Clarkes-apology-on-Twitter-for-not-walking-in-Adelaide-Test.html Interesting article and one which makes my point about walkers who then appeal long and hard in the field.

I have stated before that, amongst my friends at least, there is absolutely no issue with Broad not walking from many one-eyed Aussie fans like myself. Michael Clarke would not have walked. Why should we hold Broad to a different standard? The issue is the on field umpiring standards are falling since DRS arrived on the scene. They make poor decisions and seem to completely forget about the benefit of the doubt. The decision that almost went against Rogers last night was absolutely appalling. The ball missed the back by 2.5cm at least. I wonder if Dharmasena was assuming DRS would be used and made an "educated guess". There seems to be a significant reduction across multiple series in the quality of umpiring although Dar has been rubbish since the start of his career - his shocker in 2008 giving Hayden out caught and bowled off the middle of the pad! So essentially, a few mm each way and Australia's inferior use of appeals and poor understanding of DRS by our captain has probably cost us the match. If DRS doesn't stop all howlers it shouldn't be used at all. Never thought I'd say it but the BCCI is 100% correct! This is no way for such an important match to be won or lost. ACB needs to removed DRS until it is all sorted out.

The umpiring decisions are an exciting factor that contribute to the unpredictability and tension of the game. That's why we're all still talking about it! 100% machine accuracy is not entertainment. The only good thing about drs is that the limited reviews make it a skill to apply otherwise I would say scrap it altogether

i think you are being a little harsh on todays modern players sheek. im willing to bet that the modern player is probably more sporting than those back in the day. we have tvs and instant replay and all this fancy technology to tell us when something is out so we can look at it any time we want and keep rehashing it. nowadays batsmen get out and dont walk, bowlers scream for lbws they know are not out and catchers claim catches they know are not out. back int he day bowlers bowled underarm to win a game and aim balls at each others bodies. plus im pretty sure that wg grace got out and was given out but point blank refused to walk saying 'they came to watch me bat, not you bowl'. broad did what every other batsmen has done at least once and many have more than once. knew he was out but didnt walk. there is no moral difference between not walking when you know you have knocked the cover off the ball and not walking when you know you have only nicked it.

Well that's certainly true, but why would you want to emulate them? Losing matches and whinging 'at least we played fair' is a classically pointless and unedifying British press pastime. No-one has ever admired or respected them for it, and it just sets them up for a climate of failure.

problem with that is where do you draw the line and take the decision away from the on field ref an give it to the third umpire? if someone is lbw but its not given does the 3rd umpire step in? what about no balls that are not picked up? you can say only have it for obvious ones but in replays so many things look obvious.

Exactly the same with your analogy in football......players dive to make the ref make a decision. Standing there when it is bleeding obvious you have hit it, is trying to fake a decision in your favour. If there is any doubt at all that the batsman has hit it, as Sheek says above, by all means stand your ground and await the umpires decision. That said, as most players don't walk nowadays, to make it fairer the third umpire should be able to let the onfield umpires know if they have made an obvious booboo, and dump the current DRS completely.