Broad the Fraud?

I awoke this morning to read several outraged comments from Aussies about the fact that Stuart Broad failed to walk when given not out even though he obviously edged a catch to Clarke at first slip.  The general consensus seemed to be that Broad was (is) a cheat.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not an English fan, and Broad is in a battle with KP and Swann as my least favourite English player.  However, I find myself in the awkward position of defending him.  Broad is not the first, nor will he be the last player who let the umpire decide whether or not he was out.  In fact most players do.  Even Australia's captain has been known to do this.  Yes some players will walk on fairly obvious dismissals (Bairstow earlier).  A few rare players will walk even when they could have gotten away with it: Gilchrist comes to mind.  But some may remember, there was almost as much controversy over Gilchrist walking as there has been over Broad refusing to.  Perhaps Broad would be more respected by the Aussie fans had he overridden the umpire, but he is not really the problem.  The problem consists of three parts: firstly the umpire, secondly DRS and finally the Aussie tactics.



If the umpire had made the right call there would not have been any of this discussion.  On this occasion he made a mistake.  That makes him like every other umpire: human.  For as long as cricket has been played, even the best umpires make mistakes.  It is part of the game- a frustrating part, but a part none the less.  It is to cut down on the frustration that the DRS (decision review system) was introduced.

The DRS is one of those no win prospects.  The aim is to eliminate the howlers (obviously bad decisions) from the game.  The problem is who should refer the decision?  The umpire has already made up their mind, so they are not likely to refer.  So the players are the ones who appeal the original decision.  However if the players are given unlimited reviews, every wicket would be reviewed by the batting team, and every 1/16th chance by the bowling team.  The match would grind to a halt.  So the number of reviews is limited- each team only has a couple of unsuccessful reviews in an innings before they are unable to ask for any more.  What then happens is that a team uses its reviews on tighter calls (not just the howlers), and then there is a howler like yesterday, and DRS ends up looking bad.

This brings us to the Aussie tactics using DRS.  The Aussies gambled their reviews on line ball decisions.  If it had worked, they would have gained a whole lot, but it was always a risk.  If they only appealed the fairly obvious wrong decisions (the original reason for the DRS), then they would have had a review or two up their sleeves for this decision, and all would be right with the world.

Broad is not a cheat.  He is just playing the game, just like the Aussies are.