Not really. The umpire is there to make the decision. He unbelievably didn't. And it makes up for a couple that have gone against us. You could say it was un gentlemanly. Whether I walk or not depends on who the opposition are to be fair.
It didn't look good, was plainly out. The problem is that if you walk when out, you will, over the course of a career, be out more times than you actually deserve to be. If you walk, you will always be out when you edge it, plus you will sometimes be out when you don't edge it as a result of a mistake by the umpire. Yesterday Root and Trott had good cases for being not out but had to go. The young lad was stumped (IMO) on 6, ended up on 98. Broad was plainly out but still there. All in all, there's no better example of how these things evern themselves out.
Cheating implies breaking rules. Find me a rule he has broken.... Ungentlemanly, yes very. But cheating no.
It's all we will hear about off of the Aussies now and the decisions against us yesterday will be quickly swept under the carpet. It's all part of test cricket and why after all the years it's been running people still love it and why I personally think its the best form of the game by a mile.
Don't be ridiculous. No Aussie would have walked, either in this test or any other ashes match for donkeys years
Can't see what there is to be upset about TBH Yes I think it was better when batsmen from both sides walked when they knew they were out, but those days went ages ago and now there is no way I would walk now knowing that the other sides batsmen were highly unlikely to. In the context of this match the Aussies had all the major decisions going their way the stumping that wasn't given and what about Joe Root walking when he probably wasn't out
Re: Can't see what there is to be upset about TBH Stuart Broad is a cheat. End of story. What he did breaks the laws so how could he possibly not be a cheat. If thats whats in the spirit of the game then hemsworth tyke has a brain.
If the aussies hadn't have used their last review on a stupid lbw which was obviously not out then they could have appealed. It's the aussies, they're only ok when they're winning
Spirit of the game and laws of the game are totally different things. I look forward the seeing the aussies walk when they next bat but I wont hold my breath
Nope they are not the spirit of the game is in the laws. Could go on with this one. Fact is hes a cheat no matter hows its sugar coated.
Next time barnsley are awarded a penalty wrongly, I assume you would expect them to refuse it would you or is that different??
Law 42 old chap. Football isnt cricket. I would still call the barnsley player a cheat if he deliberatly cons a referee, despite it not being in the football rules ( i dont think)