1st Test: England v Australia at Nottingham Jul 10-14, 2013

[MasterBlaster76]

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.

Ramdin dropped the ball and then picked it up again pretending to have caught it - that's far worse than what Broad did.

 

[used2bcool]

I'm onboard with part of Aaditya's suggestion. Do away with this Spirit of Cricket - it has no place in international professional sport. We have cricketers being paid a ton of money to win, and umpires being paid a ton of money to make decisions. Let both do their jobs. And let captains gamble away their reviews at their own risk.

I can't put into words how satisfied I am that this happened to Clarke. No one deserves it more.

 

[aditya123]

Ramdin dropped the ball and then picked it up again pretending to have caught it - that's far worse than what Broad did.

Did`nt Broad pretend to have not hit the ball here? What is a batsman`s equivalent of what Ramdin did then? Getting bowled out and claiming a cyclone blew away the stumps?

 

[ste_mc_efc]

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.

they are different actions which is why they aren't same.

 

[SiriusBlack]

edited

 

[used2bcool]

Simon, do you honestly believe that Broad did not know he hit it? If we're going by the knowledge factor then Broad is as much a cheat as Ramdin and should be punished accordingly.

I'm in no way saying Broad should've walked. There are maybe three players in world cricket who might've walked given that situation. The umpires are paid to make that decision, let them earn their pay. And make Clarke pay for frittering away his reviews.

 

[aditya123]

they are different actions which is why they aren't same.

So, can you tell me what would be as 'disgraceful' an act for a batsman?

 

[used2bcool]

Ramdin dropped the ball and then picked it up again pretending to have caught it - that's far worse than what Broad did.

How? They're both trying to unfairly influence the falling of a wicket. In Broad's case he's trying prevent his wicket from falling, while Ramdin is trying to claim a wicket his team has not earned. It's the same thing. They both were fully aware what they were doing. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that Broad didn't know he had hit that.

 

[barmyarmy]

No-one denies that Broad knew he hit it but the problem is a wider one and he doesn't deserve to be singled out.
To be honest not walking has become far less of a problem with DRS so it's probably not worth the ICC's while to make a big push for punitive measures.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

So, can you tell me what would be as 'disgraceful' an act for a batsman?

Why?

 

[barmyarmy]

Incidentally had England blown their reviews like Australia had Ian Bell would have been out lbw for 34 to a ball missing leg stump. Aleem Dar strikes again.

 

[used2bcool]

No-one denies that Broad knew he hit it but the problem is a wider one and he doesn't deserve to be singled out.
To be honest not walking has become far less of a problem with DRS so it's probably not worth the ICC's while to make a big push for punitive measures.

No, of course not. I agree with you. I'm not saying Broad should've walked. My beef is with the people saying it's different than what Ramdin did. It's not. It's just as blatant.

 

[barmyarmy]

It's definitely different.
Blame the ICC.

 

[used2bcool]

How is it different? Because the ICC has historically tended to punish the one offense and not the other? I'm saying the nature of the offenses is the same. Obviously no one is going to punish Broad for standing his ground and that's because the Spirit of Cricket is an intangible and obsolete...thing (since it's not a law). It's time to scrap it.

 

[aditya123]

Why?

Just because there has to be some definition of what the spirit of the game is for the batsman. This is not about Stuart Broad or Clarke or Aleem Dar here. If we all agree and if the administrators of the game believe that the spirit of the game is something which must always be adhered to, it must eventually be something tangible. If not a rule, we must be clear as to what it constitutes.

Ian Bell was declared run out in the second innings of the Trent Bridge test in 2011 when he strolled off assuming the ball had gone for 4 and before the umpires called tea. He was called back by the Indian team as the verdict was that the spirit should be adhered to.

Now, my question is whether only the fielding side is to be held responsible as caretakers of the spirit of cricket? Would it not be great if the ICC can penalize Broad and set a precedent against it. If they do it, more batsmen would walk in the future knowing the consequences well. For me, what Ramdin did and what Broad did are analogous to each other. Both tried to hide the fact from the umpire knowing well that they were lying.