Passive/active also isn't a valid distinction IMO, though this gets into a fairly long philosophical debate and would be a bit of a derail.Regarding people raging at broad for not walking and comparing it to Ramdin's claimed catch - when you stand your ground as a batsman you're being passive. You're letting the umpire make a decision because you're not sure. When you claim a catch which you obviously know you dropped then you're taking power from the umpire and actively making a decision for him, which isn't a done thing. That's the distinction imo.
Yeah fair play to him, he batted great from what I saw of it. Was fortunate to fall asleep for most of his knock or I'd be in the worst mood ever.Great to see Burgey's boy Ian Bell do well.
Hmmmmm, are you saying Broad is a tosser for not walking or do you just think he's a tosser??Stuart broad is an absolute tosser of monumental proportions, and dar is having a nightmare, but at the end of the day this is really clarke's fault for being so reckless with his reviews.
Yeah I mean I'd agree if it was anything important. I do sort of agree even now. But sport is just something we do for fun and the rules are only there for the players and fans to make up as we go along. They really don't need to be underpinned by an internally consistent moral philosophy. If we almost all agree that one thing should be accepted and another not, then so be it.This isn't a good reason. Everyone else doing it is such a bad reason for doing anything.
Yes it does. There's been an arbitrary consensus for many viewpoints (still is for some viewpoints) which we in the modern western world would find wrong or abhorrent. Why is this any different? An "arbitrary consensus" is never satisfactory on its own.
I don't have any particular problem with what Broad did ftr but I too don't see a moral difference between Broad and Ramdin.
Which still makes him the best spinner since Shane Warne.Surprised at the praise in here for Agar's bowling - cant take anything away from his batting. He looked tidy and functional but not particularly threatening. He didnt do anything wrong, with the possible exception of going over to Bell, but he didnt do anything interesting either.
Best since Warne. He may be, may not. I hope this argument doesn't continue on forever, though I'm sure it hasn't finished yet. I definitely agree though in that Agar has many things going for him. I've been impressed by his good deliveries all test, even first innings. His bowling will continue to become better as his nerves don't interfere. Great maiden test for a 19 year old.Which still makes him the best spinner since Shane Warne.
I'm not particularly high on him, his seam position is awful but ultimately he has 3 things on his side - 1) age 2) being left-handed 3) the ability to bat. All of these things make him the Australian equivalent of Nicky Boje, but also means that he is likely to get an extended run in the Australian side and insert himself into the petri dish that will hopefully allow him to grow.
Passive/active also isn't a valid distinction IMO, though this gets into a fairly long philosophical debate and would be a bit of a derail.
^that's the distinctionNot walking is not helpful to the umpire. Claiming a dropped catch is lieing to them. A world of difference.
I'm fairly certain that since the dawn of time, cricket has been played with the following implicit rule - batsman is out if fielder claims to have caught the ball. Even with the advent of technology and slow motion replays, this principle has not changed because the fielder is still the only person capable of adjudicating whether or not he has taken a catch. Of course, there are situations these days where batsmen challenge fielders on whether they have actually taken a catch cleanly or not, and we are not going to get into the debate of whether that is right or wrong, but the reality is that in 'claiming a catch', this is one place in cricket where the spirit of the game is generally still upheld and the umpire is not responsible for making this decision. The umpire is charged with making the decision about whether a batsman nicked the ball however.This isn't a good reason. Everyone else doing it is such a bad reason for doing anything.
Yes it does. There's been an arbitrary consensus for many viewpoints (still is for some viewpoints) which we in the modern western world would find wrong or abhorrent. Why is this any different? An "arbitrary consensus" is never satisfactory on its own.
I don't have any particular problem with what Broad did ftr but I too don't see a moral difference between Broad and Ramdin.
That's interesting, I've never heard that before as an old "gentleman's' rule, I thought the main and one was benefit of the doubt goes with the batsmen.I'm fairly certain that since the dawn of time, cricket has been played with the following implicit rule - batsman is out if fielder claims to have caught the ball. Even with the advent of technology and slow motion replays, this principle has not changed because the fielder is still the only person capable of adjudicating whether or not he has taken a catch. Of course, there are situations these days where batsmen challenge fielders on whether they have actually taken a catch cleanly or not, and we are not going to get into the debate of whether that is right or wrong, but the reality is that in 'claiming a catch', this is one place in cricket where the spirit of the game is generally still upheld and the umpire is not responsible for making this decision. The umpire is charged with making the decision about whether a batsman nicked the ball however.