If the Batsman is given out by the umpire without actually nicking it, he doesn't have a choice to stay at the wicket. So to make things even, its fine to leave it to the umpires.
This is ridicules!!! how many times batsmen was wrongly given out, by umpires? how many in the history of the game are walker? Example, sachin never walked, even he was out, unless umpire give it. off course he was wrongly given out many times in his career.
Banning is not right rule... We need to think of better solution.
Re: Ridicules!!
by Atanu Chatterjee on Jul 14, 2013 12:10 AM
Agreed with your view. However in early part of Sachin's career, he always used to walk without looking at the umpire. In last 10 years things might have changed(probably due to the fact that he got quite a few decisions against him and then chose to leave it to the umpires).
Holding is indeed right. The elder Broad banned Ramdin for what most cricketers usually do. Going by the same rules, the younger Broad must also be castigated
Broad has just played cricket the Aussie way. When playing against Aus play like an Aussie seems to be Broad thinking and rightly so. If every batsman who is out walks, why the hell do we have umpires and technology? Who asked Aus to use all their referral? Broad is right here, may be not in cricket's spirit. But against Aus he has done the right thing.
The question is if Broad had been given out wrongly,would the Australians have called him back? Every knows the answer. Then where is the spirit Mr.Holding is speaking about? Broad was right in staying back.
Re: DRS
by Subroto Neogi on Jul 13, 2013 08:35 PM
Exactly. At least in controversial and crucial decisions like this the use of DRS should be authorised by modifying the laws so that umpiring errors can be overruled.
Though its true that Aussies have been time and again at the wrong end as far as spirit of the game is concerned but that does not justify the action of Broad either. Also, most of these incidents happen when it is usually difficult for umpires to decide with naked eye/ear what was right. But in this case, it is blunder committed under broad daylight. Also what Broad has done shows his sheer lack of integrity, selfishness and will to win at all cost. So, Holding has a very valid point in punishing the culprit..... just to ensure that cricket is played in best of spirits.
Re: One wrong can not justify other one
by Subroto Neogi on Jul 13, 2013 08:46 PM
Broad cannot be blamed as the destroyer of the spirit of the game as there are too many players who have not 'walked'. Rather 'walkers' like Adam Gilchrist are few and far between. However Broad is not an innocent water lily either. He has been involved in questionable acts before. I guess its in his blood; Chris Broad himself has made questionable decisions as match referee; India has been victims at least on two occasions.
