I didn't actually see the Stuart Broad not-out howler last night. I expect I was asleep. But when I woke up and hopped onto Twitter this morning to see how the cricket went, just about every cricket tweeter I follow was going on about this controversial decision of Aleem Dar to give Stuart Broad not out after edging one right into Clarkey's hands. Not only this, but there was heated discussion about Stuart Broad's decision not to walk when Dar gave him not out.
I had my reservations about making a judgment when I read all this, having not actually seen what happened. I tend to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt on walking until the following question is answered: did the batsman actually see the catch? Did he watch the ball into the fielder's hands? Simply put, did the batsman know he was out? I immediately set to finding a video of the incident to have these questions answered.
It was quite stunning. A thicker edge I cannot remember witnessing. A more regulation catch there never was. Only Broad's being clean bowled would have been a more straightforward dismissal. The Aussies shouldn't even have needed to appeal the catch. Yet, he was given not out. You couldn't make it up.
More to the point, Broad's eyes never left the ball: he watched it right off the bat into Clarke's hands. That, for me, finally satisfied me of Broad's guilt. No one can say he didn't know he was out. He should have walked.
Yes, I am one of those "sanctimonious idiots", as Twitter's legsidelizzy calls us, who think a man should walk if he knows he's out. I don't accept the argument that the players should "let the umpires umpire" irregardless of whether they make a decision that is clearly wrong. The umpire isn't the only person on the field who is able to know whether a batsman is out or not - umpires are only human, after all. A batsman who knows he's out, but is given not out by the umpire, has a duty to correct the wrong decision. He has a duty to walk. Not to do so is blatant cheating, plain and simple.
It's the spirit of the game. It's sportsmanship. It's cricket. No, the batsman is not obliged to walk strictly under the rules of the game - he is entitled to stand his ground and wait for the umpire's decision, and if the umpire gives him not out, he's entitled to stay put under the rules of the game. That still doesn't make it right. This is the gentlemen's game we play. "Cricket" is, or at least once was, synonymous with integrity and fair play. Every time a batsman refuses to walk he compromises the spirit of the game.
And let's not have any of this "we all know an Aussie would have done the same thing" stuff. The argument that it's okay not to walk if you're playing against Australia because everyone knows, obviously, that Aussies never walk, is pathetic, and a pleading excuse at best. I don't think the people who make this plea get it: Stuart Broad refused to walk off a blatant catch. Broad's defenders don't have a moral high ground to stand on; they are defending the indefensible. England are now as much tainted by the stain of non-walking as Australia is.
Of course, this whole incident wouldn't be as much a controversy if Australia had not already used up (wasted) all their reviews. Clarke would have promptly asked for the decision to be reviewed, the DRS would have shown a straightforward edge and catch at first slip, and Broad would have been sent on his merry way with no more questions asked. But Clarke had wasted Australia's last review on a complete non-starter, a review for an LBW off a ball of Pattinson's that was clearly going down leg side.
This incident should really bring home the need to reform the way DRS works. Giving the reviews to the captains encourages the teams to waste their reviews like this, on iffy LBW chances that might (but probably won't) go their way if reviewed, leaving them high and dry when a real howler goes against them. This was the original object of introducing the DRS - to get rid of howlers.
Mark Taylor often mentions his idea which would improve the DRS: to take the decision to review completely out of the hands of the players and to let the third umpire intervene unilaterally, as many times as he wants during the match, if he thinks a decision is wrong. This would get rid of dodgy, time-wasting reviews and let the DRS resume its proper function - that of getting rid of howlers. There's nothing controversial about this; this arrangement is already in place to allow the third umpire to check for no-balls at any time. This would, as they say, let the players get on with playing and the umpires with umpiring.
No comments:
Post a Comment