Michael Holding:right or wrong?

Holding considers not walking to be on a par with claiming a catch that you knew that you hadn't taken and should be punished in the same manner.
To me ,he is just a chippy fella who feels that one of his chums was hard done by.As a professional TV pundit I would have expected better judgement from him.Am I missing something as I feel that Broad was passive and did nothing other than await the ump's decision and made no attempt to mislead anyone.

here is an article on CI arguing Holding's point of view:In .
my asesment fault lies with ICC and not with Broad ( not Stuart atleast)
they got on a moral high horse with the Ramadin issue......and will take atleats an explanation and apology from ICC to clear the air

What is the difference between a batsman who knows he has nicked it and a fielder who claims a catch that he knows has been grassed? Is there one moral code that applies to the point of impact, when ball passes/hits bat, and another for anything that happens after that point of impact? As one non-cricketer asked me today (and a valid question it was too), does the batsman have some sort of immunity from morality that no other player on the field can rightfully lay claim to?

When I asked her to explain further, she wanted to know why the game places no expectation on a batsman to be honest but frowns upon a fielder who claims a catch that has bounced, or a fielder who steps over the boundary line and does not confess to it. Her point was that if it is perfectly acceptable for a batsman to stand his ground when he clearly knows that he edged the ball, and live or die by the umpire's verdict, why is it that there appears to be a different sort of moral obligation on that same player if he were a fielder and claimed a low catch that he knew to have slipped from his fingers?


The tension and bad blood stems from this lack of clarity. Is it in the intent, the knowledge of a crime committed, or something that happens after the impact zone of bat, pad and ball? As it currently stands, there appears to be two different zones of honesty

further if a bowling side appeals vociferously....for a dismissal and then refuses to make a DRS to call to review in case umpire.....that measn they were knowingly making a false appeal ...hence guilty like Ramadin.

the captain of the falsely appealing team should be banned in such a case:shock: 

To be honest , I thought they went a bit OTT on Ramadin...I would have settled for a right telling off.
But there is a difference...that was deliberate deception rather than just letting the official do his job ; diving for a penalty as against knowing you are offside but going ahead and slotting the goal with a happy celebration  

...yeah not a big difference I guess , but it is just the way the tradition of the game has evolved . Even the "unwritten" laws were written bu batsmen...

I don't consider that Broad should face a ban but do feel he should have his card clearly marked by the England management.

In support of Broad, he was a passive participant and, in apparent contrast to Ramadin, did nothing to deliberately deceive; good points made by Taff and Alfie. If Dar had done his job properly, Broad would immediately have been on his way. Furthermore, if Clarke hadn't squandered earlier reviews, he could have referred the appeal to the third umpire and soon waved Broad on his way.

So why am I still uncomfortable with Broad?

It's largely become the norm that international batsmen don't walk if there could be any doubt about them having edged the ball. I can understand that. It's a tough game. Extremely few bowlers would, for example, hold back an lbw appeal if they thought the ball was narrowly missing leg stump and nor would I expect them to.

I therefore can't claim any moral high ground. I realise that a slight nick should be the same as a hefty whack when the ball carries to a fielder. However, what grates so much for me was the obviousness of it. Summed up very well by Derek Pringle (not normally one of my favourite writers): ''Most international cricketers do not walk, as Michael Clarke and his team are aware, though few perhaps dance with the devil as willingly as Broad did, such was the obviousness of the edge.''

My unease is increased by so much being made by the England team and the MCC of adhering to the ''Spirit of Cricket'' and the mantra of ''play hard, play fair''. Apparently this was publicly supported by Broad before last year's tour to India. We do seem to want it all ways, regardless of there at times being a blatant conflict between ''hardness'' and ''fairness''.

I think the practical reality is for Broad to be clearly told in private by England's management that he's not expected to be an ''immediate walker'' but in future he shouldn't remain at the crease, as if his feet are stuck in concrete, when he has been so ''obviously'' dismissed. I don't feel the ICC should be involved other than hoping for this type of ''behind closed doors'' conversation.

Yes, we want to win and, like all international sides, are prepared to cut a few corners to achieve that. However, Broad's (in)action went too far. Where do you draw the line? I don't know but definitely believe Broad went beyond it.

The ICC action over Ramdin was way over the top and I wasn't surprised that Broad senior was the man involved there. I would have had greater respect for Stuart had he walked, but I have no complaints about him not doing so. The mistake is with umpire Dar and even more so with the ICC. I don't often agree with cricinfo's Australian reporter Brydon Coverdale, I considered his convoluted logic about the axing of Simon Katich as nonsensical, and his defense of homework gate as rather pathetic, but I have to mostly agree with him here.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/651025.html

What is funny is that some are saying that the difference is that Ramdin was intentionally trying to deceive the umpire... As if Broad forgot he touched it, and needed the umpire to help him out...

As Brydon hints in the article, its not absolutely clear that Ramdin was trying to mislead the umpire, at least not as much as it was made out to be. Michael Holding has a right to feel hard done by, but he has to direct his fury towards the ICC rather than the younger Broad.

''It can't ask of fielders what
it won't ask of batsmen''

That right there is my view... Said in clearer words than I.

This may seem a little left field, but Holding was a player during the 70s & 80s, the era where the phrase "Only w*nkers and the West Indies hi-5" was said in ECB hallways. An era where racism was still outward, or at the very least, thinly veiled... In short, the "grovel" era.

I think (and note if the Mods think Im way off base, or that this comment can derail the thread, youre welcome to delete it) that Holding had a few of those past hurts surface... It struck a personal chord. The ICC decided that the West Indian was lying, and he was now demanding that in a game of boobie-for-tat, the English boy, the son of the man who "excecuted" Ramdin, befall the same fate. I think Holding is coming from an emotional, rather than intellectual place. The guy studied computer sciences (not sure he got his degree), he is normally the most rational man in the booth.

It is fairly telling when umpires no longer take the word of the fielder as to whether a four or six has. Been scored.The game has become less honest as it sadly reflects the times.
The phrase "it is not cricket" to highlight a lack of ethics will be redundant soon if not already.

Taffineastbourne wrote:It is fairly telling when umpires no longer take the word of the fielder as to whether a four or six has. Been scored.The game has become less honest as it sadly reflects the times.
The phrase "it is not cricket" to highlight a lack of ethics will be redundant soon if not already.

Why allow person interpretation rather than use the technology available. I would say it's the technological age, rather than the honesty of the game that has changed. If the umps can alter the status of the game (Agar and Trott) by bad decisions, keep it the same and let umps decide out or not.