Why Has Broad Dishonered His Sport And Himself?

[ToraToraTora]

He knew he was out, by not walking he thus decided to be labelled as a cheat forever. I don't understand why anyone would do that. This will eat away at him. Many a snooker player has called a foul on themesleves rather than live with the ignimony and I always thought Cricketers had similar honour.

[aelmpvw]

i've never understood why batsmen 'walk', that's what the umpires are there for

[paddywak]

He's not out untill the umpire tells him he's out.

[Frank97]

I always thought Cricketers had similar honour.
So did I, seems we're wrong.

[ToraToraTora]

then, with all due respect, you have no understanding of cricket.

[jim360]

Geoff Boycott would disagree with you.

"Cricket, I always thought, was slightly different [in that players behaved better."

Geoff Boycott: "You're living in cuckoo land".

Lest we forget, WG Grace, the first-ever famous cricketer, was a dirty rotten cheat.

[ToraToraTora]

sorry frank my comment above was for aelmpvw and paddwak

[brionon]

Snooker players are better sports !

[solvitquick]

Dear ToraToraTora,
You are living in a dream world in believing that there is something sacredly honest about cricket.
There is nothing special about cricket compared with other sports. What about the notorious "body line bowling series" pre-war? What about the repeated "ball tampering" incidents?
Broad was right. If the umpire did not declare him out then he was not out and should not have surrendered his wicket. In fact he would have been in trouble with his team-mates and manager.
If sport loses it's primary aim of winning, within the rules and according to the umpires, referees etc., then it would not be worth watching. This is typified in football by the stultifying boredom of "friendly" matches.
As for snooker's gentlelmen, they know they are under the watchful-eye of slow motion at The Crucible or Wembley and the point is seldom crucial. They do disagree with the referee at times over ball-position replacement after a miss.
Tora, when you watched the London Olympics, did you, in your heart, do so to see the Brits win or simply to watch them taking part?
Kind regards,
SIQ.

[jim360]

There was at least one case when a snooker player declared a foul in himself in the deciding frame with all balls the opponent needed easily available (at that standard) to pot. He lost the frame pretty soon after. It seems that most of the time snooker players are fairly gentlemanly. But they do resort, despite that, to more subtle underhand means to gain an advantage, so the aim is still to win.

[ChillDoubt]

he won't be labelled a cheat forever. Anyone with a basic knowledge of cricket knows that some walk, some don't.
It's not his job to walk, that's for the umpire to decide. I defy ANYONE to say that the Australian's wouldn't have done exactly the same in his position i.e. both reviews used hence it's down to the umpire ALONE to decide if he is out or not.
Why so much fuss when there was so little over the two decisions(Agar and Trott) the day before?
As Boycs said in summary last night on TMS, when the roles are reversed and a batsman is given wrongly out they are never called back by the fielding side to have another go, they all go by the umpires decision, simple as.

[Old_Geezer]

Surely long gone are the days when the gentlefolk opted to lose to those who played by the umpire/referee's decision ? Or even animately questioned it in the hope of convincing a decision to go their way ? Sure cricket held out for longer than most sports/games but the inevitable is just that.

[FredPuli43]

Very nice of a batsman to walk before seeing the single finger, but ,strictly speaking, that is why the fielding side ask for the umpire's decision (How was that? "Howzat" ? How was he? etc). If they don't appeal like that the umpire can't give the batsman out. Why, therefore, should the batsman usurp the umpire's function or try to ?

Some pretty good batsman don't walk. Don Bradman famously didn't walk in an Ashes test when he was blatantly out, wasn't given out, and went on to score a lot of runs. But not everyone is quite like W.G Grace, who once told an umpire "They've come to see me bat, not you umpire!"

[ichkeria]

Didn't Broad 'walk' today however when he was out without looking at the umpire?
If so it does make you think.

[DaisyNonna]

Case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[daffy654]

Snooker isn't a sport.

[DJHawkes]

'This is typified in football by the stultifying boredom of "friendly" matches. '

You didn't go on North End today then lol 23,000 would disagree

[DTCwordfan]

You are not out until the umpire says you are out.

All but Gilchrist of the Australians in recent times would have stayed - it's ingrained in them from youth cricket......so an Englishman does it, and thereby incurs the wrath of amateurs who don't even know the laws on this.....

In terms of balance everything evens out.

This match alone proves that, the wrongful dismissal of Trott, the wrongful decision on the stumping of the mosquito Ozzie youngster (but well played), and then Broad.....pretty equal as to the match, I would think.

[brionon]

Dafey
Snooker isn't a sport. So who said it is ? Anyway -define Sport. In the old days it was Huntin' Shootin' and Fishin'.!!

[solvitquick]

Dear DJHawkes,
I'm a keen football fan (real English asscociation football). I love the competitive matches: league matches, cup-ties and euro competitions. However friendlies, especially internationals, with 6-substitutes are like watching club practice games.
I know a lot about most clubs and grounds with special emphasis on Anfield, Goodison Park and Prenton Park. Now live over 200 miles away though.
So where is the "North End" if it's not Preston? Similarly where or what is an "Old Trafford"?
Regards,
SIQ.