| Broad Walk Umpire 03:46 - Jul 16 with 1623 views | FredManRave |
There's absolutely no doubt that the umpire Aleem Dar made a huge in error in not giving out Stuart Broad after his thick edge on Thursday. Quite how he didn't see it is anybodys guess. But he didn't and what with the new DRS rulings the Aussies, to their utter and understandable chagrin, weren't able to review it and get, as an inevitable consequence, the correct decision.
And what did Stuart Broad do during all this. Well as mentioned, firstly he got a thick edge to the delivery which was eventually caught at first slip. Other than that he didn't do much else. He certainly didn't walk. But should he have done?
There's obviously been loads written about this in the press over the last few days although I haven't seen it debated on here so I thought I'd just throw it out there to see what everybody else's take on the matter is. Me. I think he should have walked and the best summary I've read so far and one of the few that take that stance is below;
Of course, he should have walked. Turned on his heel and headed back to the pavilion, not a backward glance, not a second thought.
The professionals, sad to say, are almost universally in denial on this. The apologists, with their mitigations and excuses, miss the point.
It does not make a man a fiercer competitor if he plays to the bitter letter of the law. It is not always up to the umpire to make the call. There is such a thing as basic, common decency. Being a good sport, being a straight up guy. Golfers, snooker players, call penalties on themselves. Why not cricketers?
It is not as if we are at war here. These are ball games. If false information can save several thousand lives in battle, that is justified. If you have edged it to first slip in a game of cricket, just go. It really isn’t that important. Indeed it is remarkable, quite preposterous, that there should even be a debate.
Yes, there will be grey areas. Times when the fielder isn’t sure whether the ball was grounded or not; super fine edges that may have come from the bat or the pad.
This wasn’t like that. Stuart Broad knew what he had done, so did everybody on the field, bar the one man with the power to act – umpire Aleem Dar. He was made to look a fool and he did not deserve that. It should not be that referees, umpires and judges are left embarrassed by honest, inadvertent, human error.
Broad had the power to spare Dar. No, it wasn’t his job to cover for him, but it was the right thing to do. Such loyalties have no currency anymore. The umpire is the patsy and Dar took Broad’s fall.
Does this make England’s all-rounder a bad lad? Not really. It just makes him no different. His behaviour wasn’t extraordinary. He knows his Australian opponents would probably have behaved the same way, given the opportunity.
That doesn’t make it right, though. Certainly, it wasn’t a positive step for cricket. Maybe if Broad had walked it would have inspired sportsmanship in this Ashes series; maybe young cricketers would have watched and taken note.
We talk role models and leading by example, but these are just marketing slogans now. Here was the reality. Win at all costs, foot on the throat and press down. England should win this Test match from here, and that is important too, but it will have come at a cost.
‘We’d have probably treated you the same if you had come over to our place,’ says David Bowie’s alien to the probing, prodding scientists in Nicolas Roeg’s The Man Who Fell To Earth. He is philosophical, but that isn’t the point. Sometimes doing what is right matters more.
Adam Gilchrist, the great Australian cricketer, always walked. His team-mates were seldom impressed but it won him respect worldwide. Maybe his honesty was an aid when he appealed, too. Nobody knows, and Gilchrist didn’t do it for that. He just paid it forward.
Broad broke no rules when he remained at the crease yesterday. But he flouted a basic tenet of the game. It is there, in black and white, in the preamble to cricket’s laws. Written and inserted in 2000 after an unprecedented series of unsavoury incidents, two simple sentences attempted to reclaim the moral ground from the ball tamperers, match fixers and besmirchers of cricket’s name.
They read: ‘Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself.’
Did Broad injure cricket yesterday? Sadly, he did. He didn’t mean to. He was just playing hard, playing to win.
Yet this was a watershed moment. A compelling Ashes Test, a match on a knife-edge, a high-profile dismissal inexplicably missed. This was a moment that could have meant more than just a small alteration to the scoreboard. It wasn’t a borderline call, there was no uncertainty.
Broad edged the ball to Brad Haddin, Australia’s wicketkeeper, who clawed jerkily but teed it up to his captain, Michael Clarke, at first slip. Dar’s unseeing eyes stared unmoved down the wicket.
The Australians gathered in mounting disbelief. The replay showed the howling inaccuracy of the decision, but Australia had used their two reviews. There should have been no drama, no confusion. By then, Broad’s bat should have been at rest and his conscience clear as he made his way from the field.
If this sounds old-fashioned, out of date and out of time, then we need to look, not at the review system or the logistics of the event, but at ourselves. What have we become that honesty is old hat? How can we counsel a child to tell the truth and then offer the rider that sporting contests are the exception? How can anyone even attempt to justify that logic?
Broad was out. He knew he was out. Everybody on the field of play knew it, too. There is something quite wrong when England can moan about two injustices one day and then be very comfortable to embrace one every bit as great the next.
Praise be to Michael Holding, too. He was a lone voice among his fellow professionals on Sky, defending the spirit of the game. He called for Broad to be banned, which may be harsh but would certainly remind a few players of their responsibilities.
The problem with having an analytical line-up solely consisting of ex-professionals is that the majority take a pragmatic line. There was nobody to stick up for fair play yesterday until the man once known as Whispering Death spoke out. He shouldn’t be whispering this time, though. He should be shouting this stuff from the rooftops.
Some of the caveats are simply irrelevant. It does not matter that Australia used at least one of their referrals unwisely. Maybe they will not chase specious lbw decisions in future and reserve their challenges for moments of utter certainty.
This is a sub-plot though, not the main event. This is not a test of the DRS system but of the basic principles of right and wrong.
West Indies wicketkeeper Denesh Ramdin was banned for two games in the Champions Trophy after claiming a catch when he had clearly spilled the ball.
What is the difference? Would England have won anyway had Broad walked? We will never know. That is a pity, too.
Australia, if they lose this Test, as seems likely, will move on to Lord’s with a burning sense of injustice that is quite possibly misplaced.
England were going well when Broad got his good break and had a little useful batting left. Their control had increased throughout the day and Australia began to look tired.
It is quite probable that England would have beaten them fair and square. They might just have to settle for square, instead. |  |
| |  |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 07:29 - Jul 16 with 1545 views | ShotKneesHoop |
Heck of a long post for a thread that was already covered last week.
End result is you get a reputation for not being a walker. In cricket things do even up. Expect Broad to get the rough end of a pineapple from now on as soon as England's reviews have been used up.
Broad has a reputation for pushing umpires to the limit. He has been warned for excessive appealing and also throwing the ball at batsmen. He only got fined half his match fee for throwing the ball at MS Doni. In club cricket, he would have been banned for 8 weeks minimum. |  |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 10:39 - Jul 16 with 1426 views | kingsburyR |
Yes this was done last week but...............
He is no more guilty than Brad Haddin or whoever else was dismissed under DRS.
Haddin knew he had nicked the last ball of the test. (His reaction to look back towards to wicket keeper said it all).
Yet he is not being vilified. Is he any less guilty because the impact on the bat was less? |  |
| Dont know why we bother. .... but we do! |
| |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 10:44 - Jul 16 with 1412 views | Pizanti |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 10:39 - Jul 16 by kingsburyR |
Yes this was done last week but...............
He is no more guilty than Brad Haddin or whoever else was dismissed under DRS.
Haddin knew he had nicked the last ball of the test. (His reaction to look back towards to wicket keeper said it all).
Yet he is not being vilified. Is he any less guilty because the impact on the bat was less? |
Totally Agree! |  | | |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 23:25 - Jul 16 with 1350 views | qprmick |
Does that mean that if a player is given out wrongly, he should just stand his ground? If players want to take the decision out of the umpires hands by walking shouldn't it apply in every circumstance? | |
| |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 07:09 - Jul 17 with 1303 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 23:25 - Jul 16 by qprmick |
Does that mean that if a player is given out wrongly, he should just stand his ground? If players want to take the decision out of the umpires hands by walking shouldn't it apply in every circumstance? |
If a batsman stands his ground, he is "disputing the decision of the umpire" and is liable for disciplinary action leading to a four week ban in most leagues. If it happened to me, I would write him up for a ban.
Umpires can't change their minds but they can correct wrong decisions.
1. A fielding captain can withdraw their appeal if an umpire gives a positive decision incorrectly to an "over enthusiastic" appeal.
2. They can also signal "Overturn decision" if they make a decision in error.
3. They can also call a batsman back who walks thinking he is out without a decision from the umpire. This is called called "leaving the crease under a mis-apprehension" and umpires are also instructed to turn down any appeals for a resultant stumping or run out by the batsman walking from the crease believing he is out when he is not. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 07:48 - Jul 17 with 1277 views | qprmick |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 07:09 - Jul 17 by ShotKneesHoop |
If a batsman stands his ground, he is "disputing the decision of the umpire" and is liable for disciplinary action leading to a four week ban in most leagues. If it happened to me, I would write him up for a ban.
Umpires can't change their minds but they can correct wrong decisions.
1. A fielding captain can withdraw their appeal if an umpire gives a positive decision incorrectly to an "over enthusiastic" appeal.
2. They can also signal "Overturn decision" if they make a decision in error.
3. They can also call a batsman back who walks thinking he is out without a decision from the umpire. This is called called "leaving the crease under a mis-apprehension" and umpires are also instructed to turn down any appeals for a resultant stumping or run out by the batsman walking from the crease believing he is out when he is not. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
Aaaaaagh, well it is all history now. Broad doesn't seem to be bothered so bring on Lords. | |
| |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 07:55 - Jul 17 with 1274 views | derbyhoop |
I'm content with the fact, that at the top level, nobody walks. They wait for the umpire's decision. I can recall at least one occasion when I was given out caught when I didn't touch it, so it can work both ways. Generally speaking, the umpires are excellent and don't make that many mistakes. The DRS system should be to review serious errors and shows that the umpires get the decisions correct.
This time, Aleem Dar, who is generally considered to be the best umpire in the world, made a horrendous error. The Aussies had used their reviews, badly, so couldn't get this one overturned. Tough. It happens. Get over it, which they seem to have done. |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 08:58 - Jul 17 with 1245 views | johann28 |
When you're playing Aussies, you play Aussie rules.
Reminds me of an Ashes tour down under - someone (Graham Thorpe?) edges it behind - given not out, didn't walk etc. Bowler howls: 'you f**kg' cheat'. Reply: 'when in Rome, mate...'
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Broad Walk Umpire on 09:18 - Jul 17 with 1234 views | Jeff |
I didn't realise Martin Samuel posted on here!  |  |
| |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 09:24 - Jul 17 with 1231 views | PinnerPaul |
Moving the debate on into technology.....
Many feel football should use it more, just to note that all the below happened in the test WITH technology
1) Wrong decisions made by umpires on the ground
2) Wrong decisions made by 3rd umpire WITH technology
3) Technical failure lead to wrong decision
4) Controvsory all over the place
All the above people see disappearing with "technology", as someone wrote in the press this week .."Football, be careful what you wish for"
| | | |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 11:00 - Jul 17 with 1193 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Broad Walk Umpire on 08:58 - Jul 17 by johann28 |
When you're playing Aussies, you play Aussie rules.
Reminds me of an Ashes tour down under - someone (Graham Thorpe?) edges it behind - given not out, didn't walk etc. Bowler howls: 'you f**kg' cheat'. Reply: 'when in Rome, mate...'
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
It was Atherton, and he said "dear boy" not "mate" | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
