Michael Clarke is in a tizz because Stuart Broad didn't walk after clearly snicking a ball to slip and being given not out. Clarke maintains Broad should have walked.

Let's put aside the fact that earlier in the day the Aussies wasted a review challenging an lbw decision where the ball wouldn't have hit a second set of stumps set alongside the real ones.

It was a crazy call and meant the Aussies had no reviews left by the time Broad was batting.

But, knowing he was out, should Broad have walked?

I don't think so. Cricket, once a game for gentlemen, is now a professional sport. It's not a batsman's role to give himself out. He can't refuse to leave the crease when he knows he didn't hit the ball.

The review system is designed to overturn an umpire howler. This was apparently just that, but the Australians had wasted a review earlier and couldn't challenge it.

If the decision helps win England the test, which looks very likely, the tourists have only themselves to blame.

No. Not with referrals now.

Botham said it correct on the commentary "The umpire hasn't given him out. Broad doesn't make that call"

Well I think it's akin to claiming a catch when you know damn well it bounced.

With technology these days the obvious umpire error (howlers) should just be overruled by the 3rd ump regardless of the number of reviews.  They do it for no-balls.

I don't blame Broad for not walking though and Clark shouldn't be making a big issue of it as he's had a few calls go his way in his time.

Gilchrist used to walk and copped a bit of flack for it but in his case the team around him was so good that he could afford it.

:-?

In some cases the player may not be aware he has nicked the ball.....As anyone knows who has played cricket sometimes you just do not feel the edge despite it being obvious to everyone else....What I do not like is the double standards from the English....They complained about the Agar stumping and the Trott LBW yet defend the obvious mistake against Broad.....POMES are typical wingers who have nothing to complain about when it comes to cheating....Anyone for a mint???

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/mints-made-england-05-ashes-swing-kings-trescothick/2008/08/24/1219516262972.html

No way should Broad have walked.
Clarke should STFU and concentrate on winning the game

The whole game is destroyed now. Why did they ever do away with the 3rd umpire for every big decision.

Yes Dave a decision is wrong or right it does not depend on how many times people have queried decisions

Swagman wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

Well I think it's akin to claiming a catch when you know damn well it bounced. With technology these days the obvious umpire error (howlers) should just be overruled by the 3rd ump regardless of the number of reviews.  They do it for no-balls. I don't blame Broad for not walking though and Clark shouldn't be making a big issue of it as he's had a few calls go his way in his time. Gilchrist used to walk and copped a bit of flack for it but in his case the team around him was so good that he could afford it. :-?

Agreed. The 3rd umpire should be able to intervene at any time.

I think Gilly walked because he was a decent bloke. I believe he would have walked even if it cost his side the game.

miketrees wrote on Jul 13^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

Yes Dave a decision is wrong or right it does not depend on how many times people have queried decisions

It was just such a pivital part of the game. With the wicket breaking up that decision was a massive blunder. I doubt we'll have the same coditions to bat under when we come in. I hate it when outside influences like referees and umpires turn the whole course of a match. The poms loved it though.