STUART BROAD DID NOTHING WRONG, THOUGH IT STINKS.

The controversy over whether or not Stuart Broad should have 'walked' yesterday really is an argument between old morals and new. In days gone by, cricket was a game played for pleasure and entertainment with money playing little part. Indeed, until the early 1960s, English cricket maintained a distinction between amateurs and professionals, those who played for fun and those who played for cash.

 

No amateur would have been likely to have stood his ground waiting for the umpire's decision, as Broad did; if he had so obviously hit the ball and been caught, he would have 'walked'. Professionals, on the other hand, may not have been quite so quick to surrender their wickets, a move which could well have affected their earnings. There is no doubt that the great W G Grace, who was nominally an amateur but also made substantial money from cricket, probably never volunteered his wicket and, if I remember correctly, Sir Donald Bradman always left it to the umpire to decide his fate. More recently, Geoffrey Boycott was very clear that he would abide by the umpire's decisions, good or bad and was not in the habit of helping them out in times of doubt.

 

In an age when the main sport of this country, football, is riddled with cheating of every possible sort, it is hypocritical to criticise Broad for his actions. 'Yes', he clearly edged the ball and 'yes' it was caught, but the umpire made a mistake and said 'not out'; Broad was wholly within his rights to stand his ground and if anyone is to be criticised, it is the umpire.

 

I don't like this scenario but it is the one we have to accept; the world in which gentlemen played sports in an honourable way and within the 'spirit of the game' is long gone, at least in football and cricket. There is so much money involved in these sports that honour can no longer exist. Given this state of affairs, I'm at a loss to understand why cricket umpires are not empowered, as are the officials in rugby union, to call for a televisual review whenever there is doubt about a decision, rather than being restrained by the system of allowing a small number of 'reviews' to each side. Rugby officials are not reduced in power by their system, in fact their positions are substantially enhanced; why does not cricket do the same ?

 

Stuart Broad's action leaves a bit of a sour taste but he did nothing wrong, given the ways of today. If cricket authorities or supporters don't like it, then they must look to change the rules and introduce more help for umpires; until they do, things are as they are.