Conflict within 'the spirit of the game'.

[Ruckus]

This - there are some who will try and draw a nonsensical distinction between the Broad situation and where the batsman feathers the ball to the keeper, but the reality is most batsman don't ever walk, which to my mind is a great shame, but there you have it - at the level I used to play at the game would be unworkable if batsmen weren't honest about edges but that's not the case at higher levels. Imo Broad is certainly in the wrong, and I would question his sportsmanship, but I wouldn't accuse him of trying to cheat.

Maybe I haven't seen the right replay or something, but my impression of the Ramdin incident was that he dropped the ball and simply went with the umpires decision. I didn't see much evidence he was deliberately trying to persuade the umpire he caught it, he didn't even appeal.

 

[Goughy]

I remember being apoplectic with this at the time but I never for a second thought Geoff Marsh cheated

Bad Umpiring - Aus - SA WC 1992 Marsh was not given out to Allan Donald - YouTube

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Maybe I haven't seen the right replay or something, but my impression of the Ramdin incident was that he dropped the ball and simply went with the umpires decision. I didn't see much evidence he was deliberately trying to persuade the umpire he caught it, he didn't even appeal.

What about Rashid Latif's similar indiscretion? He was banned for 5 ODIs (never quite understood why he didn't face a ban of a number of Tests, given the 'cheating' was in a Test match), but where does that fit in the pantheon?

As an aide memoir: Latif banned for five matches over disputed catch | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Ruckus]

What about Rashid Latif's similar indiscretion? He was banned for 5 ODIs (never quite understood why he didn't face a ban of a number of Tests, given the 'cheating' was in a Test match), but where does that fit in the pantheon?

As an aide memoir: Latif banned for five matches over disputed catch | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

Could only find a 7 second video on youtube which didn't show his reaction, so I can't really comment. I guess, though, it's somewhat irrelevant to me, because I pretty much think not-walking is a form of cheating, so claiming an obviously dropped catch def is too. People can argue that not-walking is technically not cheating because there's nothing in the rules that say you have to walk etc., but really what's more important, the rules, or the fundamental laws of cricket? I.e. you nick a ball, and it's caught, you're out.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I guess though, there is precedent for one form of indiscretion (falsely claimed catches) being treated as "cheating" as it has warranted censure - (though I'm not sure why this seems to only apply to wicketkeepers. The number of falsely claimed outfielder catches is much higher and yet I can't recall such punitive censure for outfielder) whilst the other has never been directly penalised or treated as "cheating" and has been a part of the game for absolutely donkey's years. I'm not quite sure why this one particular example has become such a huge deal, excepting that it seems to have been much, much more obvious an edge than most which have been glossed over in the past.

 

[Ruckus]

I guess though, there is precedent for one form of indiscretion (falsely claimed catches) being treated as "cheating" as it has warranted censure - (though I'm not sure why this seems to only apply to wicketkeepers. The number of falsely claimed outfielder catches is much higher and yet I can't recall such punitive censure for outfielder) whilst the other has never been directly penalised or treated as "cheating" and has been a part of the game for absolutely donkey's years. I'm not quite sure why this one particular example has become such a huge deal, excepting that it seems to have been much, much more obvious an edge than most which have been glossed over in the past.

Yeah that's exactly right. That's all it is - just an outcome of how the game has developed. And I think it's a shame things have turned out that way, because I don't think it would be that difficult to encourage a culture of 'walking' amongst cricketers. All you have to do is make sure it is seen as something that is heavily condemned and frowned upon, and then less people will do it. It's this culture of acceptance promoted by people like Chappell and Botham that has ruined that.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Indeed. And I think the reason why this particular instance has proven to be a bigger deal, is that we actually tend to get these umpiring errors or non-walking events corrected anyway by the UDRS. I mean, Clarke had that infamous non-walking episode in the last (?) Ashes... Was it off Pietersen? Anyway - that was corrected by the UDRS and it wasn't an issue. It made Clarke look a bit of a tit, but no worse than that.

Basically, if we can get the balance of UDRS right, then non-walking will become a non-issue I hope.

 

[fredfertang]

It has a lot to do with the relationship between players and umpires - in England umpires are ex-pros and always have been, but historically they were in badly paid and insecure jobs the continuance of which was wholly dependent on the old amateur captains giving them decent reports - the culture that developed was that the pros wouldn't make their old colleagues jobs any harder by making them adjudicate unnecessarily so, as the amateurs were all honourable men who wouldn't dream of trying to steal a march on the umpire anyway, everyone walked and always did,

And the fielder's word was final on catches - it started to breakdown in the 60s - in Kenny Barrington's benefit match, against Yorkshire, Kenny was "caught" low down by Fred Trueman at short leg and walked on Fred's nod that he had taken a fair catch - Kenny had apoplexy later when he was shown a press photo that demonstrated it wasn't a catch.

Kenny was also involved in a ridiculous incident in South Africa in 64/65 when the teams "fell out" because Eddie Barlow (I think it was Barlow - cba to check) refused to walk and went on to a big score. Again Kenny was unhappy and decided he wasn't going to walk and stood his ground in his innings after feathering the ball to the 'keeper and was given the benefit of the doubt. He stood there for a moment after being given his reprieve but then decided he couldn't go through with it and walked off anyway - so the local press then turned on him for taking the piss out of the umpire and the South African players, which understandably he thought was a bit harsh, so he never even thought about not walking again.

But I digress - the point is that social conditions will never go back to what they were like in the first half of the 20th century, and batsmen in Test cricket are never going to start walking en bloc again

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, you don't get elected to the ICC Elite Panel if you go making decisions based on body language

Nah you're naive if you think it never makes a difference to an umpire

 

[fredfertang]

Nah you're naive if you think it never makes a difference to an umpire

Viv Richards being a case in point - although tbf I suppose blatant intimidation is not quite the same thing as body language

 

[Jarquis]

Nah you're naive if you think it never makes a difference to an umpire

These days, I really don't think it does.

 

[Furball]

This - there are some who will try and draw a nonsensical distinction between the Broad situation and where the batsman feathers the ball to the keeper, but the reality is most batsman don't ever walk, which to my mind is a great shame, but there you have it - at the level I used to play at the game would be unworkable if batsmen weren't honest about edges but that's not the case at higher levels. Imo Broad is certainly in the wrong, and I would question his sportsmanship, but I wouldn't accuse him of trying to cheat.

It's all very well asking batsmen to be honest but what's the honest batsman to do when he's given out caught behind when he hasn't hit it?

Batsmen should only be honest when fielding teams stop appealing for decisions when they know the batsman isn't out.

 

[MrPrez]

It all comes down to the individual's idea of what cheating is and what "part of the game" is.

 

[wpdavid]

I had to smile at Chris Broad being interviewed on the subject this morning. It's just a shame that the interviewer wasn't well enough informed to ask him where he stood on batsmen standing their ground even after the umpire has given them out in pre-review says.

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah that's exactly right. That's all it is - just an outcome of how the game has developed. And I think it's a shame things have turned out that way, because I don't think it would be that difficult to encourage a culture of 'walking' amongst cricketers. All you have to do is make sure it is seen as something that is heavily condemned and frowned upon, and then less people will do it. It's this culture of acceptance promoted by people like Chappell and Botham that has ruined that.

I don't think the culture of not walking is down to anyone other than bowlers really. Bowlers are adept at hearing outside edges when the batsmen has simply played and missed. They are surprisingly deaf to the inside edge when appealing for lbws. So batsmen don't walk bcos they have been cheated out of their wicket many times in the past. Its an accommodation the game lives with and different to a catch hit to the field.

 

[Coronis]

It's all very well asking batsmen to be honest but what's the honest batsman to do when he's given out caught behind when he hasn't hit it?

Batsmen should only be honest when fielding teams stop appealing for decisions when they know the batsman isn't out.

I'd rather everyone just be honest, personally.

 

[Esperance]

Good luck with that.

 

[fredfertang]

I'd rather everyone just be honest, personally.

Agreed - it wasn't beyond Adam Gilchrist, so it's perfectly possible

 

[Dazinho]

It's all very well asking batsmen to be honest but what's the honest batsman to do when he's given out caught behind when he hasn't hit it?

Batsmen should only be honest when fielding teams stop appealing for decisions when they know the batsman isn't out.

This = well said.

Problem with total honesty in these situations is that unless everybody applies the same standard with regards 'spirit of the game' then the most honest tend to be those who lose out.

If you're given out having missed it by miles the previous week, why walk if you get away with one?

There will always be cases where sides think an LBW or possible catch MIGHT be out, and/or the batsmen is genuinely not certain whether or not they hit it. Got to chance your arm in those situations and let the umpire decide, it's what they're paid to do.

Also worth noting that Australia used their two appeals very, very early in that second innings and at least one of them was a waste. Captains should use situations like this as a reason to use DRS sparingly.

 

[NasserFan207]

Broad did nothing to deceive the umpire. Catch claimed, bowler appealed, umpire made his decision. Broad did not try to influence the decision. He stood his ground and waited. Clearly a poor decision but Broad was merely a spectator.

Some of the reaction, admittedly in the minority, in here is ridiculous and painful to read.

I should clarify that I'm not suggesting Broad cheated in this thread. He didn't cheat because he didn't break any rules. I'm talking more about why there are different expectations for people playing in different positions.

For me the main difference is that claiming a grounded catch these days is just stupid, because it should always get checked.