The Broad Walk

[Punk_Sk8r]

I know this is an old subject now but I still don't understand why people are getting mad about broad not walking? why because it was a thick outside edge as opposed to a more subtle edge that we see MANY cricketers stick around for? *cough* Ponting *cough* so whats the big deal?

Also does anyone remember this; Funniest Cricket Sledging Ever ! Gilchrist sledging Kaif ! - YouTube

Shame Gilly was a good sportsman but half of his team were full of people that would cheat and use dirty tactics at any given time, so it just made him look stupid.

Anyway my point is so what if Broad didn't walk, people only got annoyed by it because it was such a blatant edge, had it been more subtle people would say "Oh he didn't feel it" blame the ump

 

[surendar]

I wouldn't really call it 'cheating' IMO because it is not responsibility of any batsmen & it is actual responsibility of an umpire. You cannot call a player cheat just because someone who is designated to do the job, didn't do their job correct.

Well, I do agree that it's all gentleman's nature to walk out & all but it doesn't really have to be hard & fast rules to walk out.

 

[MUFC1987]

What goes around, comes around. Before long, Broad will be spitting feathers because some batsmen drives it to cover and is given not out. Just part of the game really.

 

[cricket_icon]

Broadwalk Empire

 

[blockerdave]

i personally didn't like it. i like having a successful england cricket team - i grew up watching some absolute shocking teams - but find this one hard to love. they're just so deeply cynical - remember the last morning at trent bridge trying to slow the game down to get to lunch when in danger of losing... playing turgid, attritional cricket for long periods. the "win at all costs" doesn't work for me - they're in the entertainment business. if they drive people away it harms cricket. they're custodians, and should remember that. the england fans have proven over a long time they will support a team that isn't winning (hence barmy army), so their is no justification for their attitude.

i happen to agree with every word of warne's about cook as captain. he's a just a personality bypass in a blazer, perfect in this day of age of media management. no actual tactical flair whatsoever.

i am certain few of them (other than gilchrist) wouldn't walk but i really admired the aussie team under waugh that came here in 2001. they played positively.

 

[Punk_Sk8r]

i personally didn't like it. i like having a successful england cricket team - i grew up watching some absolute shocking teams - but find this one hard to love. they're just so deeply cynical - remember the last morning at trent bridge trying to slow the game down to get to lunch when in danger of losing... playing turgid, attritional cricket for long periods. the "win at all costs" doesn't work for me - they're in the entertainment business. if they drive people away it harms cricket. they're custodians, and should remember that. the england fans have proven over a long time they will support a team that isn't winning (hence barmy army), so their is no justification for their attitude.

i happen to agree with every word of warne's about cook as captain. he's a just a personality bypass in a blazer, perfect in this day of age of media management. no actual tactical flair whatsoever.

i am certain few of them (other than gilchrist) wouldn't walk but i really admired the aussie team under waugh that came here in 2001. they played positively.

I agree with the Cook statement. Also I prefer it when we win and tbh what do you come to expect of English sport we fail at being exciting just look at our football teams, no flair, no excitement just some static boring play which goes nowhere. It's what I've come to expect, although it is a pain to watch but at the end of the day if it means we can dominate the aussies for 15 years or so then so be it

What goes around, comes around. Before long, Broad will be spitting feathers because some batsmen drives it to cover and is given not out. Just part of the game really.

Yeah but it's no different to when Ponting doesn't walk from a thin edge or any other batsmen, what my whole point was is that people were getting fired up because it was such a blatant edge despite the situation being EXACTLY the same compared to someone who nicks it a little less.

 

[AngryPixel]

What goes around, comes around. Before long, Broad will be spitting feathers because some batsmen drives it to cover and is given not out. Just part of the game really.

I bet he won't stay silent for next 6 months. He would rant about it every chance he'll get.

 

[Owzat]

I wouldn't really call it 'cheating' IMO because it is not responsibility of any batsmen & it is actual responsibility of an umpire. You cannot call a player cheat just because someone who is designated to do the job, didn't do their job correct.

Actually if the ball goes from bat to hand it is out, one of the basics you learn as a kid. Like if the ball hits your stumps you are out and the only reason you hang around is in the hope it is a no ball, or the umpire makes a mistake

Forcing the umpire to make a decision is cheating because you know you are out, it isn't as if Broad didn't. Your justification of not walking, and that of many who condone the action, doesn't make it in any way, shape or form right. Broad didn't want to be out, that is the fact of the matter, and standing your ground creates pressure on the umpire as he might doubt his own eyes.

You could also factor in an awareness Broad might have had that the aussies didn't have any reviews left, many will say their own fault, I say a flaw in the system. If the ball had hit his stumps he'd have been on his way, if the umpire had given it out he wouldn't have reviewed it.

He was out, he knew it, he stood his ground and the umpire compounded it all by not giving it. Broad, the umpire, the aussies who wasted their reviews and the person who set the DRS as it is should all hang their heads in shame - as should anyone claiming that not 'walking' is ok because they think the umpire should have to give it. Read the laws, if it states you are out caught "only if the umpire gives it then please feel free to post it, but every time I check it says no such thing, it lists the methods of being out.

Or maybe Broad had his fingers crossed and then it doesn't count...................

Anyone got any other lame excuses why a professional cricketer needs to be given out when they know they are out? I guess those defending not 'walking' indulge in a bit of it (cheating) themselves

----------

What goes around, comes around. Before long, Broad will be spitting feathers because some batsmen drives it to cover and is given not out. Just part of the game really.

Again, saying it is "part of the game" is like suggesting diving, headbutting, biting, spitting, handling the ball on the line, tugging shirts etc is "just part of the game" (of football) It happens, it shouldn't.

As for what goes around, comes around. Sadly if that is the direction the likes of Broad want the game to go then we may well see a "well if he's not going to walk, why should I?" and a complete breakdown in the basics of cricket.

What made cricket stand head and shoulders above other sports is dying, and the attitude of the fans/spectators doesn't help when they come out with tripe that justifies the indefensible. The ICC should have taken action ages ago, they jump straight in and change the laws when Finn knocks a bail off from time to time, but why bother with something that undermines the game like not 'walking'?!?!?

I hate it when England do it, sullies the name of England cricket and pretty much raises doubts over winning when that is what a side has to resort to. If you have to cheat to win, don't bother playing. Although many are trying to distance the word from the (in)action, any way you dress it up Broad hit the ball, it was caught, he was out and he knew it.

That he doesn't have regrets shows you the kind of player he is, and the mentality of most when it comes to good sportsmanship and respect for your fellow professionals who include the opposition as well as your team-mates.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Read the laws, if it states you are out caught "only if the umpire gives it then please feel free to post it, but every time I check it says no such thing, it lists the methods of being out.

it doesn't really, it says you are out if you do certain things and an appeal to the umpire is made. the necessity of the appeal is part of the laws. so edging a ball isn't an automatic out, black and white situation, in cricket, you're not out if no one in the field asks the question, even if the umpire is thinking he would have given it. so there is an element of the umpire having to agree with a fielder for an out which is kinda the same as saying you are only out if the umpire says so.

however, overall, of course you're right about the whole thing and it would be far better for the game if such behaviour was stamped out. this is also a phenomenally well named thread.