Broad should have walked off or not?????

Broad nicked a ball from Ashton and caught in the slip by Clarke. Broad stood still because he was not given out. Well this issue is one of the hot topic popping out in the Ashes if we leave apart DRS. Whether Broad did the right thing or not?

Well, I think he did what he should do.He was right on his part. It is the Job of umpires to rule him out not his. And he was going with his team in the crucial situation. I heard from many people that following sportsman spirit, he should have moved on. But that's what my point. If team spirit and sportsman spirit collides what a player should do? After all we are playing for our team.

Many compared this incident with that of Ramdin in CT, where he was fined by ICC, for appealing knowing that the ball landed on the ground before coming to his gloves. But I don't think this comparison fair. Atherton says Gilly once walked off in spite of not given out by the Umpires, but he was also not immune to appealing in his role as WK for catches proved not to have come off the edge.

A batsman never appeals or shouts for why he was given out even when he was not out. But a keeper do in a match whether the batsman is out or not. We can only punish someone for not doing the job well in true spirit which he is assigned. And till now there is no rule that a batsman should move out if he feels he is out.

I feel it is not good to condemn Broad for not walking out.

The spirit of the game, the character of the player etc. are all ideologies that sadly belongs in the past.

This is the professional era and Broad is not the first player who didn't walk.

We may hail Gilchrist as an example to all mankind for being a "walker" but I have seen some real "holier than thou" comments from other websites.

It is one of those cases depending which team you support has an influence on your opinion.

The question should rather be how can the umpiring system be changed to ensure the right decision is made every time.

I understand the DRS system is open for abuse if a team has unlimited number of appeals, so do we accept there will still be mistakes or find alternative solutions?

I think circumstances come into it a heck of a lot here in this case.

My guess is that England were far from happy with the Trott decision mainly and perhaps the Agar decision from the day before and thay left them with a sense of injustice. When Broad clearly edged it he waited for the umpire to give him out but didn't he probably felt this was a bit of pay back for those two earlier decisions that went against his team.

I think a load was made out of it at first but Australia as a team realise and accept it all. The umpire missed the edge so it is him to blame I think.

Biltong wrote:The spirit of the game, the character of the player etc. are all ideologies that sadly belongs in the past.

Hi Biltong - that might well be the case. However, if it is, more thought should be given and discretion applied before players pledge to uphold ''the spirit of the game'' - as Broad himself did, from what I've read, shortly before England's tour of India last year. Covered more fully in the ''Holding: right or wrong?'' thread posted earlier. [This separate thread is unnecessary. Admin might wish to merge them.]

Broad didn't have to walk, so he didn't you didn't see Haddin walk and that's the same, only difference been the DRS. As another rule in any other sport the rules can be used to your advantage or disadvantage, England have seemed to of mastered the review system whereas Australia haven't which cost them in this case. The DRS system is not flawed, the way it was used by the Australians was flawed.