Brilliant Ashes Test, just captivating. Trent Bridge will live long in the memory and might put to rest the notion that Test cricket is somehow the poor cousin of 20-20.
Interestingly, so much of the talk coming out of the match has been the non-dismissal of Stuart Broad, and the fact that ex-England captain Michael Vaughan expected he would be forever known as a “cheater.”
Cheating in sport? What a can of worms that opens.
For the record, I don’t think Stuart Broad can be accused of cheating when all he did was wait for the umpire to make a decision. One of Australia’s greatest captains, Steve Waugh, would have done exactly the same thing. “I never walk,” he once said. “The umpire is there to do a job.”
No different to the last football World Cup, when England played Germany and had a very clear goal waved away by the officials. The German defence were unlikely to stop and say, “Look, actually, the ball was over the line.” The Germans didn’t cheat, they just played to the whistle and the referee/umpire’s decision, as we were all taught to do as sporting kids growing up.
Or some years ago, when Manchester United goalkeeper Roy Carroll made a terrible blunder and allowed the ball to cross the line in a game against Tottenham Hotspur. He clawed the ball back into play and the game continued and he was not about to put his hand up and admit his gaffe had led to a goal. But is that cheating?
Brad Haddin is no more of a cheat than Stuart Broad, even though he admitted in a press conference after the Ashes Test that he knew he’d hit the ball, which was actually a surprise to me because I still couldn’t see that hot spot, but hey, this time, the umpires conferred and seemingly got it right.
Legend has it that English cricketer William Gilbert Grace once snicked a delivery which lodged in his pad, and he immediately ran to the boundary fence and jumped over it to claim a six. Is that cheating or just wonderful opportunism?
Australian cricket captain Greg Chappell was labelled a cheat when he instructed brother Trevor to bowl that infamous underarm delivery on the last ball of a thrilling limited overs match against New Zealand in 1981. But it was all within the rules of the game so that can’t be cheating, can it? (As an aside, if bowling a ball underarm was legal, why didn’t Chappell just instruct all his bowlers to bowl every delivery underarm?)
Perhaps the definition of cheating becomes a little murky when we attempt to apply it across different sports in different circumstances.
Thierry Henry and Diego Maradona have both been labelled cheats in handball incidents more than two decades apart.
Henry used his hand to control a through-ball before setting up a goal that knocked Ireland out of 2010 World Cup qualification. Maradona used the hand of “God” to score against England in the 1986 World Cup.
Where their actions differ to Stuart Broad is that they, in the spur of the moment, used a deliberate illegal tactic to gain themselves an advantage. Broad just used a deliberate poker face to gain himself an advantage.
It seems that English fans were more outraged with Maradona’s partial denial of wrongdoing for years than the fact that he’d done it.
So if Broad in the next press conference says, “Of course I hit it,” will that makes us forgive him for something he needn’t be contrite about in the first place?
Referees and umpires won’t pick up everything and it is ludicrous to suggest that all sports should self-police in the way golf seems to.
Diving in football is not well digested, however, if someone systematically uses the practice, they’ll get a rep for it and it will eventually work against them.
Aussie Rules “taggers” like Tony Liberatore were, in effect, cheating whenever they illegally harried, tripped, elbowed or shirt-pulled an opponent but it never led to Royal Commission-like levels of scrutiny by those observers aghast at their tactics.
Rugby League has its “penalty pullers” who pretend they’re being held down in the play-the ball or were stripped of a ball they just dropped.
Former English league great Mike Stephenson told a story once about how, as a young lad, he was playing in the English league, and with just minutes remaining and the scores level, he effected a tackle on an opponent 20 metres out and right in front of his own posts.
The wily veteran he’d tackled handed him the ball as they were getting to their feet and said, “here, lad, you must want this.” When Stephenson took the ball in shock, the veteran threw up his hands and implored the referee, who immediately penalised Stephenson and the resulting penalty was converted.
Fans of the Socceroos have had their blood boil over in recent times when opponents tried to waste time and stop momentum by feigning dire injuries.
It might not seem “manly” but the referee does stop the watch and is it that different to a coach making late substitutions in order to wind the clock down?
Coaches are perfectly entitled to make substitutions while players are not entitled to dive and roll around like shot ducks, but there is an arbiter to ensure an advantage is not gained and it is much harder to get away with wasting time than say, a quick-as-a-flash handball or push or hand in the ruck.
Opportunistic or spur-of-the-moment “cheating” happens in sport all the time, as it does in life. How many of us have returned to a parked car to find a ticket under the windscreen because we exceeded the time limit? Just that once, we didn’t get away with wringing a few more minutes out of the meter.
It is the systematic and pre-meditated cheats that sport can do without. Stuart Broad is not one of them.
David Miller
Guest
He should have walked. Its just not cricket
Graham
Guest
God I wish I'd seen this earlier Cricket a "Gentleman's game"! What planet do you live on. The only people who think that have never played the game or used to write books and articles about it I the 19th century. It's not just bowlers who make dodgy appeals. Captains demand that all players support appeals. It is a longstanding adage that batsmen should not get hit on the pads three times in a short period, because the third one is always out (admittedly not in test cricket). Count the number of times the fielding side doesn't appeal when the ball hits the pads. I am going to be more boring than usual for a moment. Once when I was a kid, I got given out to a very rough (in my opinion) decision, and was complaining to my father, when he stopped me short. "Don't complain about the bad decisions." he said. "If you play long enough, your going to get plenty of them, so, unless your also going to complain about the times you should have been out, and weren't given, then keep quiet about it." There is no reason for anyone to walk, especially at test level. It is not cheating and it is not even poor sportsmanship. Umpires are paid to make the decision. Let them make it. If they are wrong, then so be it. I may change my mind the next time I see the opposing captain call a batsman back when he gets a bad decision. All of this garbage talk about cheating etc reminds me of the old "Mankad" rule. You could never find anyone who thought it was okay to "Mankad" a batsman. It was unsportsmanlike, ungentlemanly. For God's sake the runner was CHEATING. But the do-gooders got their way and the rule was changed. Just like in any sport or life in general, it's only cheating when the other side do it.
apaway
Roar Guru
Sleemo All good points. I may be wrong on this, but I remember back in the mists of time that FIFA invoked a law that required that players HAD to be removed from the ground on a stretcher due to legal reasons ie that moving them any other way might cause further injury. I suspect it was also done to "shame" players into not looking like geese when they hopped off the stretcher after reaching the sideline. That part obviously hasn't worked too well.
Hoy
Roar Guru
This is a tough one. Cricket is, and always has been a gentleman's game. I applaud those like GIlly who had the honest, and integrity to walk when they knew they were out. There is something very romantic about it. On the flipside, you have ruthless competitors like Steve Waugh, who would never walk, as that would possibly give advantage to the opposition. Broad I think is regretting it, and if he isn't, he should be. As I said, it is a terrible situation, but these days, people would more applaud his sportsmanship had he walked, and he could bask in that glory, rather than what has happened, and I don't know if even England fans are that warm to him after it now. People's actions have consequence. He will find that action's consequence will never leave him. It will follow him, and haunt him, and he will never get that moment back.
Paul E
Guest
We should leave the final word to that model sportsman Lance Armstrong - "if everybody does it, it's not cheating".
Johnny Banter
Roar Rookie
I agree that it's not realistic to have a fines system for not walking. I think it's a shift in mentality that basically dictates "I obviously hit the ball and the cameras will pick it up, I'd better go". I've never subscribed to the misguided theory that it is cheating to appeal for an LBW that is subsequently shown to be missing the stumps. The whole point of an appeal is to ask the question of the umpire as he is in the best position to judge. Especially as a bowler following through it can be difficult to be 100% sure of an LBW. I'm happy for players to ask the question.
Sleemo
Guest
Most good referees do add on the correct time, I agree, but very rarely do you get four separate obviously fake injuries from one team in one half of football when that team happens to be winning by a goal or two. Imagine the outcry if one of the AFC teams (let's just say Jordan, Iraq or Oman) were up by one, they had five phantom injuries taking up fifteen minutes of the second half, the referee added on fifteen minutes at the end and the other team (let's just say Australia) scored twice near the end of that fifteen minutes. There would be mayhem. You said it yourself - "hurts like hell for a few minutes" - not "hurts like hell enough to get a stretcher off and then magically be able to run at full pace again within ten seconds" - that's where the gee-ups are obviously involved. I fully agree regarding that a doctor's view would be that it is better being safe - that's why the players should be forced to take a few minutes to make sure they're fine before they return. Stay down to be safe, sure, but if you need help leaving pitch you should have to stay off it for a least a couple of minutes - after all, if you truly want what is best for your body, you'd be safer staying off for a few minutes while you shake it out.
James
Guest
im sure that happens sometimes but also sometimes when you have been hit whilst playing soccer and go down hard, it hurts like hell for a few minutes but then goes away but the pain you feel from breaking, spraining or just a tap on the ankle can feel very similar regardless of the injury. being stretched off is the smart thing to do and if you were a doctor you would feel that its better to be safe stretched the person off and quickly check. a good referee, most in fact, do stop their watch and have the right amount of extra time added on. dont get me wrong, i know that people fake all the time but there are also many many times when players have been hit and should stay down to be safe and then are fine a minute later.
James
Guest
yeah, to fine people for not walking opens a ridiculous amount of worms. if you say not walking is cheating or should be in anyway punished then you have to punish everyone from the haddin nick to the broad huge edge, both knew, haddin even admitted he knew therefore by your rules both get fined. plus surely we have to fine every bowler and wicket keeper who appeal for an lbw when its obviously missing.
Sleemo
Guest
Regarding your Socceroos example, players who pretend to be injured in order for the game to be stopped ARE cheating. The referee does not stop the watch, he makes an allowance for additional time at the end of the half. Theoretically that should mean that the amount of time each "injury" takes up should be compensated for by additional time at the end of the half. However in reality, referees are loathe to add more than 4 or at a stretch 5 additional minutes because of how suss it looks. If four Jordanians get injuries that each take 90-120 seconds between stopping play, trainers coming on, the injuries being assessed and the player being stretchered off, the referee will not add two additional minutes for each (i.e. 8 additional minutes). They just won't. Even though they are supposed to, they won't. The players know this and take advantage of it. Even more galling is the sight of those players being taken off on stretchers - one can deduce that this is because the "injury" has rendered them too pained to walk, yet somehow within five seconds of leaving the field they are up on their feet and ready to run as though nothing has happened. I'm no doctor, but such a quick recovery must be impossible. THAT is cheating. Easy solution for FIFA - make the laws of the game stipulate that every player who requires assistance on the field to leave it and stay off for two minutes, and every player who needs to be stretchered off to stay off for five minutes. Surely if the players are genuinely injured they will need the time to recover - FIFA will be negligent in their duty of care if they don't mandate something like this. Watch the "injuries" dry up then.
JGK
Roar Guru
If the opposition side has reviews left, I reckon you will have more walking because the player knows he's gone anyway. There is no doubt Broad would have walked if Aust had had a review left.
Chris
Guest
Oh Broad will review it then. He's a nightmare when batting, uses up reviews constantly. But yep, he'll get triggered and moan about it for sure.
Johnny Banter
Roar Rookie
Has technology overtaken the old school mantra of not walking? Nearly everyone who has played cricket seems to say the same thing - the umpire is there to do a job, let him do it. And sure, when playing club cricket with an "official umpire" (random old guy who owns black pants and a white shirt), the old mantra holds true. But in the professional arena of slow motion replays, snicko, Hawkeye, and Hot Spot, it is generally clear that a player has edged the ball and tried to con the umpire. Even though we all say a batsman shouldn't walk, we all jumped out of our chairs screaming at Broad for being a cheat. In soccer there are yellow cards for players who try to con referees in to giving penalties. In some federations they even have retrospective suspensions and fines. So in the modern era where we can often conclusively prove a player was out should the old mantra be ditched? There is of course a glaring issue with this theory. In the second innings Michael Clarke feathered a catch to the keeper. He was so unsure of the dismissal that he challenged it, but was seen to have edged the ball. Would Clarke therefore be condemned as a cheat for not having walked on a feathered edge? Or Brad Haddin for the matter? Does the dismissal need to be a certain degree of 'blatantly out' before the batsman needs to walk? I feel I'm asking more questions than I'm answering..
sheek
Roar Guru
Lovely article Apaway. I think Broad was caught in a momentary 'no man's land'. He waited just a moment for the umpire's finger to come up but, but, but, but..... It never did. So heck, Broad did what any batsman should do, he stayed. I've seen many an Aussie batsman hesitate just a moment for the umpire to confirm they're out, in an obvious dismissal. In 99.9% of cases, the umpire will confirm their worst fear. But somehow in Broad's case, the umpire missed the bleeding obvious. Stuart Broad can be sure that somewhere down the track, perhaps when he's a few runs short of a century, he'll be adjudged out to a ball that he shouldn't have got out to. That's the way it goes. Enjoy the breaks when they come.
Nice article, I think you hit the nail on the head with opportunism. I don't think it is cheating, by not walking you aren't arguing the fact that you didn't hit the ball, however you wait for the umpire to make the call, ultimately as a batsman it is your responsibility to stay in, it is not your responsibility to admit whether you hit the ball, whether you were hit in line or whether the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. If the umpire doesn't give you out you have only taken the opportunity to continue playing. The same happens in rugby when Richie McCaw "plays the referee" it only means he is an opportunist and if he gets away with it great for his team and when he doesn't they get penalised.
Chris
Guest
Every game has its internal morality, and those who play understand that. Often it can be contradictory, and those outside can't get their heads around that. Not walking is acceptable within the game, and when you do get the odd player who complains about someone not walking, the reaction from their own team mates is often one of astonishment. To take an example, no one has ever thought it right that a bowler should call the batsman back if they aren't out. Take the Root one. Now as it happens I think he probably hit it, but say he hadn't. Say the bowler knew he hadn't. Call him back? Withdraw the appeal? The very idea is preposterous. Yet what's the difference? Cricketers know how the game is played and what's acceptable and what isn't. Much of the handwringing comes from the outside.