Anyone watching the verdict

Why are they going on about Broads not out decision. It wasn't given out, why should he walk?

 

Hes a cheat. End of.

 

Why? was he given out?

 

Law 42. Read it, understand, then talk to me. Muppet.

 

Agreed. Aleem Dar is a well respected umpire, Stuart Broad has every right to wait for him to make a decision. If he didn't think Broad nicked it, and doesn't give him out, then Broad has every right to remain at the crease. An umpire is there for a reason, no point in putting him out of a job.

 

Agree you are allowed to stand and wait.
Most bats men do it including the Aussie Captain.

 

http://www.rulesofcricket.co.uk/the_rules_of_cricket/the_rules_of_cricket_law_42.htm

Where in there does it mention broad has to walk or he is in breach of any rule? Umpire never saw it and Australia had wasted the reviews they had so its unlucky. Sporting or not he broke no law of the game.

 

It doesn't, he's the only muppet in the discussion

 

Not sure who's the muppet.

Law 42 is in relation to fair and unfair play. Split into subsections 1 -18. Mostly specific items not covering this issue.

Section 18 is in relation to player behaviour and allows for censure for conduct contrary to the spirit of the game - either where not covered by the laws or where generally bringing the game into disrepute.

Where does that state that broad was cheating? You interpret that his actions were contrary to the sprit of the game. Well there's hundreds, probably thousands of previous test batsmen that acted contrary to the spirit of the game then as Stuart Broad is certainly not the first to not walk off. Given there is such an amount of precedent of the same or similar action I can't see that broad not walking is against the spirit of the game.

If you're right then broad will be reprimanded and punished by the officials. We'll see.

 

Do you cheat the system Phillip?

 

Just think its nonsense. Cricketers have been 'not walking' for as long as I can remember. Do you think bowlers and fielders never appeal for a wicket if they know its not out? I've seen them do it millions of times. If the umpires had got their decisions right in this game England would have been 400 up by the time the Broad incident happened.

The laws of the game state it's for the umpires to give decisions. Michael Clarke did exactly the same thing in the last ashes series - in fact, it was even more blatant than this one.

 

If a batsman can overrule the umpire when given not out, why can't he overrule when given out? Now that would be interesting. The whole world knew he was out, just like the whole world knew that Trott was not out.

The worrying thing for me is that 3 of the 4 controversial decisions in the past 2 days were made with the DRS system in place, but were still plainly wrong. So much for the technology.

 

It wasn't cheating, but I would call it unsporting.

However, he's not the only player from either squad to have done it, nor will he be the last.

Big day today. A day off allows me to finally watch a bit of it live, if I find a workable stream.

 

If there's anything more boring than cricket, it's a debate about cricket!

 

Spot on Jedstar!

 

Used this one for the last couple of hours play yesterday. No probs, fills the screen, good picture.

http://www.stream2watch.me/live-tv/sky-sports-2-live-stream