Is Honesty and Integrity still relevant in cricket?

by GloriousEmpire Sun 14 Jul 2013, 2:28 pm

It seems winning by any means, even cheating and manipulating controversial and bizarre "review" decisions, reliance on technologies far less reliable than they are sold as and the hallucination of review umpires is now preferred to honest victory.

Is is sad or inevitable?

by Duty281 Sun 14 Jul 2013, 2:55 pm

Spoiler:

by LivinginItaly Sun 14 Jul 2013, 3:37 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:It seems winning by any means, even cheating and manipulating controversial and bizarre "review" decisions, reliance on technologies far less reliable than they are sold as and the hallucination of review umpires is now preferred to honest victory.

Is is sad or inevitable?

I agree completely! The way brad hadin didn't walk when he knew that he had nicked it was a disgraceful act of sportsmanship! What's that you say old boy? He's australian? Well don't blame him for standing his ground, that's what the umpires are there for mate!

by GloriousEmpire Sun 14 Jul 2013, 4:04 pm

The English, gracious in victory as ever.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 14 Jul 2013, 5:29 pm

Brilliant Duty Laugh

by **Biltong** Sun 14 Jul 2013, 5:43 pm

Glorius empire, have you been watching rugby for the past decade?

by ChequeredJersey Sun 14 Jul 2013, 5:45 pm

From his comments, no

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 6:06 pm

Simply put, the ICC have to come out and clarify a few things... They thought they were being big dogs a month ago banning Ramdin, now we have just had a Test match were three batsmen didn't walk. They have to spell out what the spirit of cricket means now... If they say it means "Batsmen are by nature dishonest, but the second you field, anything deemed dishonest is a ban", well... Thats fine. As long as the line is clearly drawn in the sand... Otherwise, you can't ask of fielders what you won't ask of batters. Imagine the furore if Broad was caught on the bump by Clarke... Fact is if you going to claim you would have accepted it as part Of the game, and that fielders don't have to tell the umpire, you're lying.

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 6:07 pm

So nothing against Broad, Clarke, or Haddin, but the ICC has to do something before they look like hypocritical idiots.

by liverbnz Sun 14 Jul 2013, 6:13 pm

There is nothing for the ICC to do here. The Broad and Ramdin incidents are not comparable. One deliberately deceived the umpire the other simply waited for the umpire to do his job.

The furore over the Broad incident is getting a bit ridiculous. Batsmen rarely ever walk, that's just the way it is. It happens all over the world in the game of cricket probably every bleedin' day. It needs to forgotten about as it really isn't worth all this debate. The umpire has a job to do so let him do it. People like Shane Warne sharpening their agendas are doing much more damage to the game than Stuart Broad not walking.

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 6:29 pm

How are they not comparable? Remeber England begging India to allow Bell to continue batting "in the spirit of cricket"?

What Broad did was contrary to the "spirit of cricket" simple as that. The "spirit of cricket" goes on regardless of wether you bat or bowl.

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 6:38 pm

Ramdin didnt appeal for the dismissal, he simply didnt tell the umpire he dropped it... In the same way Broad didnt tell the umpire he edged it.

The. Spirit rules are pretty clear... It isnt against the rules to appeal when you know a batsman is out... Ramdin didnt appeal... He just kept quiet... like little Stuart, pretending there is no difference is head in the sand

by Duty281 Sun 14 Jul 2013, 6:41 pm

Ramdin claimed a non-existent catch.
Broad stood and waited for the umpire's decision.

#difference

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 6:48 pm

Watch the tape again... he never appealed. The finger was raised because the umpire assumed it was a clean catch... a fact which he didnt dispute. Watch the tape and tell me where you see him appeal..

by LivinginItaly Sun 14 Jul 2013, 7:49 pm

I have not watched the tape back of the ramdin incident but to be fair if he did not appeal, like you say, then actually you are right to draw comparisons between the two incidents. Incidently somebody must have appealed for the catch if it wasn't ramdin then out of curiosity who was it?

by KP_fan Sun 14 Jul 2013, 8:00 pm

The problem is with this "Spirit of Cricket" thingy that ICC trumpets......

and not just as a nice to have...recommendation....but enforced through penalties as severe as match bans....INSPITE of clear written rules of what constitutes such a violation

and the implementation of the spirit of cricket left to the discretion of match refree.......who incidentally now looks a bit of a hypocrite, and ICC foolish with his own son caught out in a "Spirit of cricket Violation"

ICC have egg on their face...and will lose further respect should they try to brush it under the carpet by remianing silent

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 8:02 pm

Tino Best, the bowler appealed. The umpire didnt realised it was spilled, and raised his finger while Ramdin was on the floor. It was a clear nick, so the batsman didnt challenge. The umpires conferred, decided it was out. Then Ramdin got banned by Chris Broad...

by Duty281 Sun 14 Jul 2013, 8:03 pm

Well Ramdin didn't exactly go up to the umpire or his fielders and say "no lads, I didn't catch that" did he?

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 8:04 pm

Neither did Broad...

by Duty281 Sun 14 Jul 2013, 8:06 pm

Broad didn't make an appeal, he waited for the umpire's decision which he is perfectly entitled to do. If you want to punish Broad, punish Clarke and Haddin as well, they didn't walk.

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 8:08 pm

There is nothing in the rules which compells a fielder to tell the umpire he dropped it. He just cant tell the umpire he caught it when he didnt. Ramdin was banned because Chris Broad (who in fairness, Ive always thought was a pretty good match ref), decided that what Ramdin did, while not against the rules, was against the spirit of the game... Now turn about has come... will it be fair play?

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 8:10 pm

Duty281 wrote:Broad didn't make an appeal, he waited for the umpire's decision which he is perfectly entitled to do. If you want to punish Broad, punish Clarke and Haddin as well, they didn't walk.

For the third time...
Ramdin didnt appeal, he was on the floor. The umpire made a decision, he isnt compelled to claim he caught it.

by liverbnz Sun 14 Jul 2013, 8:46 pm

He doesn't matter that he didn't appeal. Ramdin deliberately concealed the ball hitting the ground and therefore he took the decision out of the umpires hands - no pun intended.

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 8:54 pm

He rolled... while attempting to regather the ball... The umpire was too forward, raised the finger before Ramdin's range of motion was finished.
"Deliberately concealed the ball", will you have me believe every fielder who rolls over the ball is planming to drop it and then hide from the umpire? Ive rolled over a ball before, so has 80% of cricketers... the alternative is to just watch it drop.

The umpire is well within his rights to refer the dismissal, its not as if he now had to trust that Ramdin caught the ball, so dont claim the decision was out of his hands... Might as well blame the Pakistanis for not reviewing, in the same way you blamed Clarke for wasting his reviews.

by Hoggy_Bear Sun 14 Jul 2013, 8:56 pm

Agree that Ramdin was probably harshly dealt with but two wrongs and all that.

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm

Thats why ICC has to clarify the rulings, if they just sweep it under the carpet they are going to be accused of being wildly inconsistent, at best, or nepotism, or Discrimination at worst.

by Hoggy_Bear Sun 14 Jul 2013, 10:04 pm

kingraf wrote:Thats why ICC has to clarify the rulings, if they just sweep it under the carpet they are going to be accused of being wildly inconsistent, at best, or nepotism, or Discrimination at worst.

The one thing I would say is that there is a great deal of precedence that not walking is not punishable, while claiming a catch that has bounced is. Of course, in the Ramdin case it can reasonably be argued that he didn't actually claim the catch, which is why I think the senior Broad got it wrong (although it could also be argued that by not owning up Ramdin was tacitly claiming the catch). Under more normal circumstances, however, precedence explains why not walking is not punished and claiming a catch that's bounced is. There's also, of course, the question of knowing what has happened. In some cases it might be possible to edge the ball and not know it. It's quite difficult to pick the ball off the turf and not know that you haven't caught it.

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 10:16 pm

I dont think so Hoggy... There have been plenty of grassed catches in cricket... Many of which the player actually claimed he caught it. I remember Trescothick claiming a bump catch in the 2004/05 tour South Africa, I know this because it was replayed on the big screen like ten times (I was there, scored 180 with the bat too), he didnt get fined... and he actually claimed the catch! Players claiming dropped catches is not without precedent, banning them though... Indicates that Mr. Broad thinks its time to ban players who are playing contrary to the spirit of the game... Turn about and all...

by Corporalhumblebucket Sun 14 Jul 2013, 10:17 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:It seems winning by any means, even cheating and manipulating controversial and bizarre "review" decisions, reliance on technologies far less reliable than they are sold as and the hallucination of review umpires is now preferred to honest victory.

Is is sad or inevitable?

Of course, back in the days of the glorious British Empire the gamesmanship and skulduggery of W G Grace was legendary. Erm

by Hoggy_Bear Sun 14 Jul 2013, 10:35 pm

kingraf wrote:I dont think so Hoggy... There have been plenty of grassed catches in cricket... Many of which the player actually claimed he caught it. I remember Trescothick claiming a bump catch in the 2004/05 tour South Africa, I know this because it was replayed on the big screen like ten times (I was there, scored 180 with the bat too), he didnt get fined... and he actually claimed the catch! Players claiming dropped catches is not without precedent, banning them though... Indicates that Mr. Broad thinks its time to ban players who are playing contrary to the spirit of the game... Turn about and all...

There's a difference between bump catches and picking the ball up off the ground though. Again with a bump catch, as with an edge it's possible that a player might not know. That's not the same as when a player pick's the ball up off the ground, as Ramdin and Latif before him did.

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 10:57 pm

The Ramdin issue is just fuzzy... He catches it then falls over, at which point the umpire.. raises his finger... Ramdin was hardly hiding the ball, he waited... -with the ball beside him- for the umpires call. At which point the umpire raised his finger...

www.youtube.com/watch?client=mv-google&gl=ZA&hl=en&v=tf9LLE-PiOY

He celebrates at the end, but thats no less a moral crime than Broad keeping a straight face the entire time

by Hoggy_Bear Sun 14 Jul 2013, 11:03 pm

kingraf wrote:The Ramdin issue is just fuzzy... He catches it then falls over, at which point the umpire.. raises his finger... Ramdin was hardly hiding the ball, he waited... -with the ball beside him- for the umpires call. At which point the umpire raised his finger...

www.youtube.com/watch?client=mv-google&gl=ZA&hl=en&v=tf9LLE-PiOY

He celebrates at the end, but thats no less a moral crime than Broad keeping a straight face the entire time

Possibly agree with you but, as I said, I think the decision to punish Ramdin was wrong, and I agree that the ICC should address that. But while, in the context of that Ramdin decision you might have a point, in the context of most other decision's in the history of the game Broad did nothing wrong according to the Laws.

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 11:04 pm

Neither did Ramdin... which I suspect is Holding's view.

by Hoggy_Bear Sun 14 Jul 2013, 11:14 pm

Yeah you're probably right that the ICC may have to clarify the issue. Something along the lines of "Actively attempting to mislead the umpire" might need to be implemented. Could possibly also stop incessant, over the top appealing?

by kingraf Sun 14 Jul 2013, 11:17 pm

The problem is the ICC couldnt actually ban Ramdin in the LAWS of the game, so they went after him using the "SPIRIT", which arent actually set laws, even in their written form, just a cool way of saying "play nice". Pretty disapointing from Chris Broad, who is generally the best match ref around, I feel. But the ICC made their stand drew their sword, and executed a villager... Now they have a situation where three players didnt walk in the biggest cricket meeting of them all... and now they look like idiots.

by Mad for Chelsea Mon 15 Jul 2013, 9:29 am

TBH while I get that people feel Ramdin has been harshly treated, the criticism of Broad is just silly IMO. How many people have not walked in a game? Even in the "biggest cricket meeting of them all"? Plenty have got away with it too, pre-DRS. I've seen people not walk for much bigger nicks too (De Villiers nicking it straight to first slip against India springs to mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAcFSR8C0rQ)

I think part of the problem with Broad is because of the advent of DRS, and thus this sort of occurrence is getting rarer and rarer. However, it's not Broad's fault the Aussies had no reviews left after wasting one on a silly LBW shout (I suspect had the Aussies had a review and used it not a lot would have been said). Interestingly the Aussies are in fact not at all fussed by Broad not walking either. Can't help wonder if people are looking at the player (who isn't massively liked shall we say) rather than the incident itself.

Now onto the Ramdin problem. It's an interesting one because on paper Ramdin hasn't really done much more than a batsman who doesn't walk when he nicks it. As a rule it does seem we expect fielding teams still to be honest, whereas we accept that batsmen don't walk (though we always have a small moan about it): there's always more of an uproar when a fielder claims a "catch" which hasn't carried than when a batsman stands his ground.

However, from a personal perspective, as a keeper myself, I actually side with the ICC on this one. Now Mike will back up my claims that I'm not the world's most sporting cricketer: I don't walk as a rule (in League matches), happily appeal for LBWs which I don't think are out, or "catches" behind which I'm pretty sure the batsman hasn't hit (see England's appeal against Smith in the first innings off Finn where he misses it by a distance but whacks his pad, I would have shouted for that too). However, I would never do what Ramdin did. I would have straight away signaled that I'd dropped the ball. I've even done it before (on a stumping: dropped the ball before I flicked the bails off, called the batsman back when he'd started to walk off) so this isn't just speculation. Equally, if I know the ball hasn't carried to me off a nick I will say so immediately (Mike can back me up on this one, it's happened in a game we were playing together in).

I guess it's because what's happened before (the batsman edgind/not edging it, where he's hit on the pad, etc.) has in a sense nothing to do with me, I'm merely a "spectator", but the completion of the dismissal - the act of taking the bails off, completing the catch - is my action, and deceiving the umpire over that (or just passively allowing the umpire to be deceived) feels completely wrong.

by dummy_half Mon 15 Jul 2013, 9:45 am

First time I've seen that ABDV one - Dar needs to get his eyes and ears checked. Worst decision I've seen since the Flintoff one in NZ where he missed the ball by 6 inches.

I do think that in both the ABDV and Broad cases, the batsmen should have walked without waiting for the decision because both were such obvious edges (you don't see batsmen standing their ground when they've nicked one to 2nd or 3rd slip, so there clearly is a certain amount of honesty still in the game). You have to make life as easy a s possible for the umpires, and (as Boycs has said in the past), if you have a reputation for honesty there's a better chance of you getting a marginal decision from the umpire at some later stage.

by kingraf Mon 15 Jul 2013, 9:48 am

May feel wrong, but there is absolutely nothing in the rulebook that stops you from passively awaiting the umpires call.

Again, this is why Broad went after him using the fabled "spirit" of the game. To be clear, I would never have done what Ramdin did, mainly because I dont drop catches Smile

but even in that situation it takes some serious Ice veins, something which, as I have said in the "Are you a walker" thread, I dont have. But there are a lot of morally reprehensible things which I wouldnt engage in. If you dont have a rule for it, dont be an idiot and go after him because of the "Spirit of the game".

The Aussies arent fussed, and tbh, they shouldnt be. They are huge advocates of not walking. Even so, Mr. Broad set a precedent, in going after a player using an airy-fairy ruling.

While you may not have done what Ramdin did...I can guarantee that a lot of batsman wouldnt have done what Broad did. Its not about what you would have done, otherwise the guilty/innocent issue gets muddied. Thats why the game has laws. Neither player broke the rules, Mr. Broad hasnt gone on to admit that the Ramdin call was bone-headed, as long as that is the case, I think asking for Broad to be punished is warranted.

by KP_fan Mon 15 Jul 2013, 10:00 am

kingraf wrote:While you may not have done what Ramdin did...I can guarantee that a lot of batsman wouldnt have done what Broad did. Its not about what you would have done, otherwise the guilty/innocent issue gets muddied. Thats why the game has laws. Neither player broke the rules, Mr. Broad hasnt gone on to admit that the Ramdin call was bone-headed, as long as that is the case, I think asking for Broad to be punished is warranted.

yes that's the key the criticism is not really so much of Stuart ...but of ICC....and papa Broad.

Stuart is simply being dangled in the face of ICC as an example ......" You talk about spirit of cricket and ban people.......here explain this now"

I am even happy if ICC come out and say " we believe Ramadin's was a bannable offense.....and Stuart's is not because of XXXXXX reasons"

But let ICC bring clarity to the issues raised here...else fewer people will take them seriously

by Mad for Chelsea Mon 15 Jul 2013, 10:02 am

kingraf wrote:
While you may not have done what Ramdin did...I can guarantee that a lot of batsman wouldnt have done what Broad did. Its not about what you would have done, otherwise the guilty/innocent issue gets muddied. Thats why the game has laws. Neither player broke the rules, Mr. Broad hasnt gone on to admit that the Ramdin call was bone-headed, as long as that is the case, I think asking for Broad to be punished is warranted.

Totally disagree with this. I think most batsmen would have done as Broad did, the real issue is that he (somehow) got away with it. Otherwise we should go after Haddin for not walking either. I think the precedent for batsmen not walking has been too deeply ingrained to do something about it now, otherwise what do you do about every previous instance of batsmen not walking and getting away with it?

The Ramdin incident of course has less precedent (someone mentioned Latif doing something similar, can't think of any others). I was just giving my own personal opinion BTW, which is that what Broad did was acceptable, what Ramdin did less so.

As I said, I can't help but feel there's two reasons people have it in for Broad here:
- he got away with it. If Dar gives it out, or Aus have a review left, very little would be said, see for instance Smith in the first innings (didn't walk, was given out), or Haddin in the second (England review): no one's going after them (except for a few tongue-in-cheek comments by English posters).
- he's Broad. People generally don't like him very much, understandably given some of his on-field incidents in the past, though TBF he's improving in that respect. If this had been say Cook people probably wouldn't have gotten quite so agitated.

by Mad for Chelsea Mon 15 Jul 2013, 10:09 am

KP_fan wrote:
kingraf wrote:While you may not have done what Ramdin did...I can guarantee that a lot of batsman wouldnt have done what Broad did. Its not about what you would have done, otherwise the guilty/innocent issue gets muddied. Thats why the game has laws. Neither player broke the rules, Mr. Broad hasnt gone on to admit that the Ramdin call was bone-headed, as long as that is the case, I think asking for Broad to be punished is warranted.

yes that's the key the criticism is not really so much of Stuart ...but of ICC....and papa Broad.

Stuart is simply being dangled in the face of ICC as an example ......" You talk about spirit of cricket and ban people.......here explain this now"

I am even happy if ICC come out and say " we believe Ramadin's was a bannable offense.....and Stuart's is not because of XXXXXX reasons"

But let ICC bring clarity to the issues raised here...else fewer people will take them seriously

This is a fair point. I would argue that not walking has been around for so long that people don't usually make much out of it anymore, except for the odd bout of nostalgia. It's true that the ICC rather opened a can of worms with the Ramdin judgment, and that some clarification could be useful.

Is what Ramdin did any worse than this thing of showing the bat at umpires when the batsman thinks he's nicked it and the fielding side are going up for LBW? Is it worse than ABDV ostentatiously rubbing his shoulder after edging a reverse sweep onto his shoulder and being caught behind? is it worse than fielding sides appealing for caught-behinds when they know he hasn't hit it (England against Smith in the first innings here)?

The other thing is of course, Broad could always argue that he didn't know if he'd nicked it (which would be silly, but there's no objective way of saying that he knew, if we accept for instance that Clarke wasn't sure about his second innings dismissal). Whereas Ramdin would know 100% that he'd dropped the ball...

by kingraf Mon 15 Jul 2013, 10:19 am

Exactly what KP is saying, MfC the issue isnt with Broad, its with the ICC.

I personally dont like Broad (as a cricket player, find the thought of disliking a person youve never met ridiculous), and he is the one reason I seriously think players should be punished for too many bone headed reviews, but I have no complaints re: what HE did. But to suggest the ICC can sweep this under the carpet and move on is wrong. Thats rewarding stupidity.

From a purely personal level, I would say maybe Im also frustrated at the way the English play both sides in this Spirit of Cricket nonsense (and note, in the last few weeks, a lot of people I know have begun to find this a parody). two years ago, they pleaded with India to rescind Ian Bells dismissal in the spirit of cricket. Two years before that they begged New Zealand to recall Collingwood in the spirit of cricket. They got their way both times... Regardless of the fact that they did the same thing a few months before the NZ incident. Then a year ago the MCC makes a stupid Play hard play fair video, which looks like a joke in light of Broad not walking after edging to the slip (even without the deflection, it was probably a slip catch)

by ChequeredJersey Mon 15 Jul 2013, 12:20 pm

I love Stuart Broad, every team needs a mix of Ice like Cook and Trott and Fire like Broady and KP!

by KP_fan Mon 15 Jul 2013, 12:55 pm

I do not like Stuart Broad because I have following impressions:

1)he is a show pony
2)not as talented an all conditions bowler as hyped to be
3) not honest....the types in this world who feel it's OK to break laws if you cannot be legally caught... OR the type who believe I have backer in high offices who will help me get out even when breaking the laws

for the same reasons except No.2 I do not like Graeme Swann also

I do like Alaistair Cook.....he is a complete antithesis to the above 3 clauses.
I also like Prior and Anderson in this team...very honest and comitted men.

by kingraf Mon 15 Jul 2013, 1:02 pm

True wicket taker though, bowled some filth in the South African Test series and still took a fifer.

by Duty281 Mon 15 Jul 2013, 1:29 pm

KP_fan wrote:I do not like Stuart Broad because I have following impressions:

1)he is a show pony
2)not as talented an all conditions bowler as hyped to be
3) not honest....the types in this world who feel it's OK to break laws if you cannot be legally caught... OR the type who believe I have backer in high offices who will help me get out even when breaking the laws

for the same reasons except No.2 I do not like Graeme Swann also

I do like Alaistair Cook.....he is a complete antithesis to the above 3 clauses.
I also like Prior and Anderson in this team...very honest and comitted men.

What laws did he break?

by KP_fan Mon 15 Jul 2013, 1:42 pm

Duty281 wrote:
KP_fan wrote:I do not like Stuart Broad because I have following impressions:

1)he is a show pony
2)not as talented an all conditions bowler as hyped to be
3) not honest....the types in this world who feel it's OK to break laws if you cannot be legally caught... OR the type who believe I have backer in high offices who will help me get out even when breaking the laws

for the same reasons except No.2 I do not like Graeme Swann also

I do like Alaistair Cook.....he is a complete antithesis to the above 3 clauses.
I also like Prior and Anderson in this team...very honest and comitted men.

What laws did he break?

re-read the whole thing with special attention on the underlined

by Duty281 Mon 15 Jul 2013, 1:59 pm

KP_fan wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
KP_fan wrote:I do not like Stuart Broad because I have following impressions:

1)he is a show pony
2)not as talented an all conditions bowler as hyped to be
3) not honest....the types in this world who feel it's OK to break laws if you cannot be legally caught... OR the type who believe I have backer in high offices who will help me get out even when breaking the laws

for the same reasons except No.2 I do not like Graeme Swann also

I do like Alaistair Cook.....he is a complete antithesis to the above 3 clauses.
I also like Prior and Anderson in this team...very honest and comitted men.

What laws did he break?

re-read the whole thing with special attention on the underlined

I sincerely doubt that Stuart Broad believes his dad will get him out of trouble if he breaks a law.

by kingraf Mon 15 Jul 2013, 2:03 pm

Might if his the match referee

by Duty281 Mon 15 Jul 2013, 2:33 pm

kingraf wrote:Might if his the match referee

The match referee was Ranjan Madugalle.

by Sponsored content