A bit of devil's advocate here, guys and gals, but Stuart Broad today did what Luis Suarez does frequently.
Can we condone one and pillory the other?
Can we condone one and pillory the other?
OT Cricket
- Thread starter zelleryellow
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Difficult, isn't it? I know Boycott says there shouldn't be a moral argument, it's up to the umpires.
Also, you might say it's poetic justice as Agar should never have been allowed to reach his massive score. I didn't notice Lehmann and Clarke talking about that.
It's a shame to have this in the middle of a cracking bit of theatre, but still leaves one feeling uneasy.
Also, you might say it's poetic justice as Agar should never have been allowed to reach his massive score. I didn't notice Lehmann and Clarke talking about that.
It's a shame to have this in the middle of a cracking bit of theatre, but still leaves one feeling uneasy.
You're not comparing like with like. Broad didn't cheat to get the decision, the umpire just got it wrong. If Liverpool were incorrectly awarded a penalty, no one would ask them to walk away without taking it.
Likewise, if a defender commits a foul in the penalty box he usually knows it, even if the referee might miss it. How often have you seen a defender jump to his feet, grab the ball and demand that a penalty is awarded against him?
Likewise, if a defender commits a foul in the penalty box he usually knows it, even if the referee might miss it. How often have you seen a defender jump to his feet, grab the ball and demand that a penalty is awarded against him?
If he's (Broad) honest with himself, yes, he did.
He knows there was a nick on that ball.
What it shows is that sport continues towards the "win at any cost" mentality, cricket was maybe the last sport to subscribe to that ethos but I think it's arrived there now :-(
What was the moment he cheated? He didn't react, just looked at the umpire to see what would be given.
If he had run over to the umpire shouting that he never touched it, I would agree with you.
If he had run over to the umpire shouting that he never touched it, I would agree with you.
I thought Snooker (assuming you class it as a sport), was another where sportsmanship continued to prevail, but even that has started to slip recently. It's disappointing.
Broad had two choices.
Stay at the crease- much better for England.
Walk- much better for his public image.
People will paint him as selfish for staying, which is completely unfair. I'm glad he decided he was willing to face a bit of stick for the good of the team.
Stay at the crease- much better for England.
Walk- much better for his public image.
People will paint him as selfish for staying, which is completely unfair. I'm glad he decided he was willing to face a bit of stick for the good of the team.
Cromer, so would you call a centre forward that goes down under minimal contact a cheat? Or a centre who knows he is offside when he scores a goal a cheat?
To me, he did nothing wrong he just waited for the decision. It wasn't his fault the aussies used their reviews up on stupid lbw's.
To me, he did nothing wrong he just waited for the decision. It wasn't his fault the aussies used their reviews up on stupid lbw's.
I read the first line and thought "bet I know what's coming here".
Wrong, as a) he's left the club and b) you're a reformed character
The general consensus is you play to the umpire's decisions - just as you play to the whistle in football, so despite it being 'contra the spirit of cricket', he simply stood his ground, awaiting a decision that never came.
Michael Clarke did the same in 2010, which I'd forgotten about.
Plus, as you say, they did waste an LBW review on a leg side ball which would only just have hit a second set of stumps, so tough poo
I read the first line and thought "bet I know what's coming here".
Wrong, as a) he's left the club and b) you're a reformed character
The general consensus is you play to the umpire's decisions - just as you play to the whistle in football, so despite it being 'contra the spirit of cricket', he simply stood his ground, awaiting a decision that never came.
Michael Clarke did the same in 2010, which I'd forgotten about.
Plus, as you say, they did waste an LBW review on a leg side ball which would only just have hit a second set of stumps, so tough poo
Nope, totaly wasn't going to go there, i bet there isn't a professional footballer that hasn't done that, so is every single footballer a cheat? My view is that he didn't do anything wrong in waiting for the umpire to raise the finger, if he would have made a fuss if he would have been given out that would have been different.
I have absolutely no problem with what Broad did at all, it's up to the umpire to give him it so he was well within his rights to stand there having been given mot out. How many times does the fielding side appeal for catches knowing full well the batsman hasn't hit it? Some of those guys definitely knew Trott had got an inside edge on Thursday but where was their honesty then?
And Clarke has absolutely no right to complain, does he think we've forgotten when he stood his ground after being blatantly caught off Pietersen (it came off the middle of his bat!) during the last Ashes series? I certainly haven't forgotten it so what ones around comes around I'm afraid.
Jus a shame Broad didn't on to make a century to really rub their noses in it!
And Clarke has absolutely no right to complain, does he think we've forgotten when he stood his ground after being blatantly caught off Pietersen (it came off the middle of his bat!) during the last Ashes series? I certainly haven't forgotten it so what ones around comes around I'm afraid.
Jus a shame Broad didn't on to make a century to really rub their noses in it!
Hell's teeth, England badly needed that wicket.
Still in the balance even after 4 + days of play
Still in the balance even after 4 + days of play
Hell's teeth, England badly needed that wicket.
Still in the balance even after 4 + days of play
Very, very relieved myself. As TMS were highlighting earlier though, the Aussie tail aren't going to be easy to get through, so a good start was really important.
Ummmm? Looks like we've managed to **** this right up !
Can't believe that after needing just one wicket with 80 runs required we're starring down the barrel now with just 20 runs needed after lunch!
Can't believe that after needing just one wicket with 80 runs required we're starring down the barrel now with just 20 runs needed after lunch!
