Milfner Posted July 12, 2013 Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 Shameful from Broad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villarule123 Posted July 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted July 12, 2013 Yeah, Broad should have just walked off, but he can easily just say he didn't know that he hit it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The umpires have made some very big mistakes in this test, but it's all added to what has been an absolutely brilliant match! Long live test cricket! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Englands to lose now. Get Clarke out early and I think they will win it comfortably. This Aussie batting line-up after Clarke, Watson and maybe Haddin are nothing great. Could see an SOS call to Ponting or even Katich its that bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Why should Broad walk, nobody walks these days. Shocking decision by the umpire but that's why drs is there and unfortunately for the Aussies wasted their 2 reviews, the second of which was totally stupid. Great innings from Bell today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Could someone tell me the last time an Aussie batsman walked in a test match without being given out? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatAboutTheFinish Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Broad was absolutely right not to walk. Right or wrong, the days of being a gentleman on an international cricket field have long since disappeared and no team have done more to destroy that spirit than the Australians over the years. If it had been a faint nick and he hadn't walked nobody would have complained, why should he walk for a massive edge? The principal is the same, the batsmen knows he has hit it. The Aussies didn't want to listen to Trott earlier in the innings when he told them he had hit the ball, so let the umpire decide. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2013 The Aussies have benefited from the bad decisions more than England anywayPlus if they hadn't daftly wasted their second review Broad might have been given out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Could someone tell me the last time an Aussie batsman walked in a test match without being given out? Never, the only one that did was Adam Gilchrist. You don't get bowlers complaining when they get a batsman out caught behind when he hasn't nicked it. Trott was given out yesterday lbw when he got a thick inside edge, you don't see the Aussies complaining about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted July 12, 2013 Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 Trott was given out yesterday lbw when he got a thick inside edge, you don't see the Aussies complaining about that. He didn't get anything on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted July 12, 2013 Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 Anyways, more importantly Warwickshire just successfully chased down 189 at New Road with an over to spare! Maddy with 84, Chopra with 65 and Woakes came in at the end and bludgeoned 28 from 9. Get it up ya, Pears! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Trott was given out yesterday lbw when he got a thick inside edge, you don't see the Aussies complaining about that. He didn't get anything on it. Yes he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 "Just want to apologise for not walking off the ground tonight when I hit the ball. I was just so disappointed, my emotions got best of me." - Michael Clarke, 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Trott was given out yesterday lbw when he got a thick inside edge, you don't see the Aussies complaining about that. He didn't get anything on it. Yes he did I think the issue with Trott's dismissal, was the fact that the on field umpire's decision was over turned, without conclusive proof that he didn't hit it. Anyways, more importantly Warwickshire just successfully chased down 189 at New Road with an over to spare! Maddy with 84, Chopra with 65 and Woakes came in at the end and bludgeoned 28 from 9. Get it up ya, Pears! Bears beat Pears. All is well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Could someone tell me the last time an Aussie batsman walked in a test match without being given out? Never, the only one that did was Adam Gilchrist. Nope, still trying to work that one out. Also, since when should we hold ourselves (down) to the standards of aussies? I'll reserve judgement on the Borad incident until I see it all but I thought McGrath's comments, whilst excusing Broad's behaviour, should really be taken note of when talking about the review system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted July 12, 2013 Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 Trott was given out yesterday lbw when he got a thick inside edge, you don't see the Aussies complaining about that. He didn't get anything on it. Yes he did I think the issue with Trott's dismissal, was the fact that the on field umpire's decision was over turned, without conclusive proof that he didn't hit it. Yes, precisely. Sky used snicko about 15 minutes later as it's not available straight away and the only noise that was picked up was from the pad. There was no inside edge. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Yes, precisely. Sky used snicko about 15 minutes later as it's not available straight away and the only noise that was picked up was from the pad. There was no inside edge.?Snicko isn't infallible, is it?Nor is any other piece of technology - wasn't hotspot not actually available/working and therefore the lack of a hotspot 'spot' meant that the third umpire assumed there was no nick?From all of the replays that I saw that ball got a huge nick.We ought to think carefully about technology before we assume that it gives a definitive answer either way as to what has happened or what may actually happen (it's all probability, innit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Shameful from Broad. Indeed. That's not cricket as far as I'm concerned. The ICC should be issuing 10 - 15 game bans for that sort of thing and then we'd soon return the proper days of sportsmanship. Its seems the cancer of poor sportsmanship that is so prevalent in Football (and has ruined the game) is spreading to all sports now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted July 12, 2013 Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 Yes, precisely. Sky used snicko about 15 minutes later as it's not available straight away and the only noise that was picked up was from the pad. There was no inside edge. ? Snicko isn't infallible, is it? Nor is any other piece of technology - wasn't hotspot not actually available/working and therefore the lack of a hotspot 'spot' meant that the third umpire assumed there was no nick? From all of the replays that I saw that ball got a huge nick. We ought to think carefully about technology before we assume that it gives a definitive answer either way as to what has happened or what may actually happen (it's all probability, innit). Not saying it is, but it's been used for a long time. The reason why hotspot wasn't working because it had to be reset/reconfigured because of the Root dismissal the previous ball. I assume (from the use of snicko) it wasn't a nick then, just late swing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) To the batsman, there is no difference between a thin tickle and an obvious edge. In both instances, the batsman knows he's hit it. In this instance, it's just more obvious to the spectators exactly what has transpired. It's no more immoral (broad not walking) than a batsman brushing a ball with the edge (which sometimes does not appear on hotspot) and not walking. That said, Broad is still a clearing in the woods. Edited July 12, 2013 by RunRickyRun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts