I'd like every bowler who appeals for an LBW, when the batsman edges it onto his pads, to be banned too. Agreed?
1st Test: England v Australia at Nottingham Jul 10-14, 2013
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
I'd like every bowler who appeals for an LBW, when the batsman edges it onto his pads, to be banned too. Agreed?
aditya123
National Board President
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2003
- Location
- Mumbai
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox 360
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox One
I want the spirit to become something tangible now. There cannot be different laws for different people. If the spirit of the game that we all discuss is actually to be adhered, every player has to be treated by the same yardstick. Ramdin was BANNED for 2 games during the Champions Trophy for what was a fielding equivalent of Stuart Broad`s audacity. Yes, the umpire had given that out as well yet when a batsman hits the cover off the ball, people argue that umpires are out there to give you out. Thats totally two-faced. You either have the same rules for all or do not adhere to this spirit at all.
ste_mc_efc
Chairman of Selectors
In an ideal world Broad would have walked.
Very few players would have walked so I'm not going to beat up any of the individuals for not walking.
Very few players would have tried to claim the Ramdin catch, so it's fine to pick on those who do.
Gone4aDuck
International Coach
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
Everyone has an opinion. I'm not going to argue with you for 20 pages because yours is different to mine.
Ridiculous imo.
Dar should be banned and possibly Erasmus but what Broad did is accepted practice in international cricket. Is it right? Probably not but you can't start scapegoating one individual for it.
Trott and Root were sawn off when neither was out despite DRS but I don't buy the argument about decisions don't even out either.
----------
No but you can argue for 1 or 2 at least! Convince us. We do encourage debate and different opinions in the Cricket Discussion forums.
----------
Some comments from the BBC page:
ste_mc_efc
Chairman of Selectors
I wonder if he'd walk if Aus still had a review left?
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
OK - first off, enough talk about Broad being banned. He was blatant, he was very cool and he was audacious - but it's not his job to give himself out. These days, batsmen very rarely walk - Broad was given not out, so that's it.
It was a shocker - probably the worst on field umpiring howler I've ever seen, but you've got to remember yesterday when we had an appeal for a stumping, where the foot was very clearly on the line - which is out - yet the Third Umpire, after having as much time as he needs to view and review the footage, still gave it not out. Had that been given, then the last wicket partnership for Australia would never have happened and England would be about 400 ahead now. In some ways, yesterday's decision was worse because it was a Third Umpire decision, where he isn't under on field pressure. Of course, both decisions were pretty shocking.
What Broad did was against the spirit of the game, but he didn't break the rules. I don't think players should be banned for going against the spirit of the game - they should only be banned for breaking the rules.
Either way - what a test match. There's something about The Ashes; it always seems to throw up the best cricket!
----------
I'd imagine so. It's Australia's own fault - they should never have reviewed that other LBW - it was so obviously missing!
It was a shocker - probably the worst on field umpiring howler I've ever seen, but you've got to remember yesterday when we had an appeal for a stumping, where the foot was very clearly on the line - which is out - yet the Third Umpire, after having as much time as he needs to view and review the footage, still gave it not out. Had that been given, then the last wicket partnership for Australia would never have happened and England would be about 400 ahead now. In some ways, yesterday's decision was worse because it was a Third Umpire decision, where he isn't under on field pressure. Of course, both decisions were pretty shocking.
What Broad did was against the spirit of the game, but he didn't break the rules. I don't think players should be banned for going against the spirit of the game - they should only be banned for breaking the rules.
Either way - what a test match. There's something about The Ashes; it always seems to throw up the best cricket!
----------
I'd imagine so. It's Australia's own fault - they should never have reviewed that other LBW - it was so obviously missing!
There is some hypocrisy in it. Ramdin was banned for breaking the "spirit of cricket" as G4AD says and Broad was breaking it too.
Why is claiming a grounded catch worse than not walking?
Ok, Sky are showing the Ramdin one. It's far worse!
Why is claiming a grounded catch worse than not walking?
Ok, Sky are showing the Ramdin one. It's far worse!
Gone4aDuck
International Coach
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
If think you're all getting the wrong end of the stick with what I'm saying. I'm not an Aussie supporter and I would be saying the same thing if this was an Aussie player and not broad. It's just my personal view that I would like to see players walk if they know they are out. It's not going to happen but it's what I would like to see. Ramdin was quite rightly banned, but if broad doesn't get banned himself then it sends a single that players SHOULD try and cheat their way into an "extra life".
I've just watched the Ramdin one and it was shocking. I'd not seen it before but he actually drops the ball, picks it up again and pretends to have caught it. It feels different for me for a batter not to walk as there is more of a respect the umpire's decision feel to it.
Ok, Bairstowe might have walked in that situation
Ok, Bairstowe might have walked in that situation
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
I remember phil hughes gloving one against NZ when he was on 1 or something and getting let off by a shocker.
the problem then was, phil hughes was on his last warning after a very poor run. It's easy to say people should walk when they're thinking about the short term match result but had hughes walked he would have definitely been dropped, possibly never back in the team, career over. (as it happens he was dropped and australia lost anyway and they have so little options he was back a year later so it counted for nothing but still...) you can't always expect people to walk so you can't really ever expect them to walk.
think claiming a grounded catch is worse, it's bare-face deception. the fielding team asks the umpire to agree, a batsman doesn't have anything to do with the decision.
the problem then was, phil hughes was on his last warning after a very poor run. It's easy to say people should walk when they're thinking about the short term match result but had hughes walked he would have definitely been dropped, possibly never back in the team, career over. (as it happens he was dropped and australia lost anyway and they have so little options he was back a year later so it counted for nothing but still...) you can't always expect people to walk so you can't really ever expect them to walk.
think claiming a grounded catch is worse, it's bare-face deception. the fielding team asks the umpire to agree, a batsman doesn't have anything to do with the decision.
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
That's definitely far worse than the Broad one; all he did was remain cool and trot down to chat with his mate. Give that man an Oscar.
MasterBlaster76
ICC Chairman
aditya123
National Board President
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2003
- Location
- Mumbai
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox 360
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox One
Firstly, we are`nt debating a thin edge to the keeper here. It was a regulation thick edge to first slip! Is it that difficult for the ICC to standardize what they call within the spirit of the game?
If a batsman stands his ground hitting it to short cover for example, and the umpire does not give him out, would it still be okay? If thats the case, what they did with Ramdin was wrong as well. You can`t have a different 'spirit of the game' for batsmen and a different one for the fielders. If the ICC are consistent and penalize Broad similarly, it would deter batsmen in the future from standing their ground after smashing the ball into the fielders hands. DRS or no DRS, that would automatically reduce the pressure on the umpires.
Similar threads
