The Gooner Forum

Great test so far. On the Stuart Broad incident do you think the ICC should introduce new retrospective legislation and ban Broad for the next two tests for not walking?

Nos89 wrote:Great test so far. On the Stuart Broad incident do you think the ICC should introduce new retrospective legislation and ban Broad for the next two tests for not walking?

Not in a million years

Nos89 wrote:Great test so far. On the Stuart Broad incident do you think the ICC should introduce new retrospective legislation and ban Broad for the next two tests for not walking?

Despite what some people seem to suggest the reality is the vast majority of people walk if they think they might not be given out, and more often you don't even notice when people do walk because the other team will have been appealing/celebrating and for all the fans know the umpire would have given them anyway had they been asked to. For example - in this game Bairstow got a fairly fine edge through to Haddin and turned on his heel without even looking up and walked off - yet wasn't commended for walking because the presumption was he'd be given anyway if he didn't.

I thought that was a pretty ridiculous comment by Michael Holding about the ban. Seemed to have a real chip on his shoulder about Ramdin's ban for a completely different incident. Anybody else who had the temerity to claim a catch that rolled a yard out of his hand - knowing that it wouldn't be reviewed by the umpires as everyone presumed he'd caught it - would have incurred the same punishment. It's never been acceptable at any level, whereas most of the greatest players ever to play the game weren't 'walkers', so to punish Broad for something that goes on every game in international cricket is absurd.

Plus, how would we start punishing? How quickly do you have to walk - what if somebody hung around for a few seconds, just long enough to force the umpire to stick his finger up? Does the batsman have to be given 'not out' to be punished? How do we decide whether the batsman truly knew he hit it?

The mechanisms are there to correct these mistakes with two fantastic pieces of technology in Snickometer and HotSpot. Unfortunately Australia recklessly wasted their two incorrect reviews which would have seen the correct decision made.

Nos89 wrote:Great test so far. On the Stuart Broad incident do you think the ICC should introduce new retrospective legislation and ban Broad for the next two tests for not walking?

No - that would be outrageous!

What justification is there to ban a player when he hasn't broken any rules and has only done what countless others have done before him at all levels of cricket?

If the ICC want to tackle this, then they should set clear rules and introduce them going forward.

The last thing I want to see is another distasteful Eduardo/UEFA type incident, where a player is hung out to dry because it just so happens to suit the media agenda for the week. UEFA disgraced themselves by their actions but hopefully the ICC will go about it in a fair way and won't dance to someone else's tune.

Oh no... another last wicket stand

FFS. this is too much 22 shy

squeeky bum time

You do have to laugh at this lunch break lark.

England need 1 wicket to win, and the Aussie's only need 20 runs.... so with the tension and drama reaching boiling point, what do they do...??... they stop for 40 mins so they can enjoy cucumber sandwiches, a cuppa and a slice of battenberg

Only in cricket could this happen - cream tea, anyone?

g88ner wrote:You do have to laugh at this lunch break lark.

England need 1 wicket to win, and the Aussie's only need 20 runs.... so with the tension and drama reaching boiling point, what do they do...??... they stop for 40 mins so they can enjoy cucumber sandwiches, a cuppa and a slice of battenberg

Only in cricket could this happen - cream tea, anyone?

It's to the crim's advantage innit.
They get to re-group, have a piss, put talcum powder in their gloves and have a cold one.

Buggers out here are behaving as if they got revenge for the Lions tour.
All good banter, but I'm out numbered.

My mobile just got tossed into the garden because of the abuse.

Top Londoner wrote:

g88ner wrote:You do have to laugh at this lunch break lark.

England need 1 wicket to win, and the Aussie's only need 20 runs.... so with the tension and drama reaching boiling point, what do they do...??... they stop for 40 mins so they can enjoy cucumber sandwiches, a cuppa and a slice of battenberg

Only in cricket could this happen - cream tea, anyone?

It's to the crim's advantage innit.
They get to re-group, have a piss, put talcum powder in their gloves and have a cold one.

I think it benefits us.

The Aussies were batting well and eating up the run chase. 40 mins off might just let us back in.

I like your optimism g88ner. Just hope you're right.
Game on

HOTSPOT

TRAVESTY. LUCKY. HOTSPOT.


HA HA HA

Yes!!!!!!!

Hotspot!

northbank123 wrote: I thought that was a pretty ridiculous comment by Michael Holding about the ban. Seemed to have a real chip on his shoulder about Ramdin's ban for a completely different incident.

Aha, the same Michael Holding that wouldn't believe hawkeye showing Swann's lbw of Hughes (I think) pitching inside the line of leg stump. This wasn't the predictive element of hawkeye either, it was the bit that tracks where the ball lands. He was then shown the actual ball bowled in slow motion with a graphic added showing the line of leg stump and the ball clearly pitching inside the line. Still wouldn't believe it

As for the haddin wicket it was the sound that did it for him. I could hear the sound pretty clearly in real time and there was no chance he'd hit the floor, couldn't understand the commentators pessimism.

A cracking first test, the better and more experienced team just about won it. Australia battled hard and I think they knew they needed something from this test to have much hope of winning the series, my prediction now is for England to pull away but you never know