Stuart Broad, international English cricketer, should have walked his wicket on Day 3 of the Ashes. Cricket is about etiquette and enforcing the aspects of what it means to be a gentleman.
Stuart Broad, international English cricketer, should have walked his wicket on Day 3 of the Ashes. Cricket is about etiquette and enforcing the aspects of what it means to be a gentleman.
The morals of the game say that a batsman must acknowledge when his wicket has been taken. Broad, in this case, was blatantly cheating, and cheating is in fact an immoral act, just in case you forgot.
To 'walk' is to give your wicket away regardless of what match officials and umpires might decide in context of knowing you are out.
The gentleman's action to perform would be to tuck your bat under your arm and make your way to the change room -even if the umpire does not give you out. Broad is not a gentleman.
Even less-so, he is a tail-end batsman, he isn't in the side for his batting.
So what right has he to think he can disregard batting ethics when he isn't even a batsman?
The general opinion of cricketers who form part of the Grahamstown cricketing community seem to share the ethos that a batsman should 'walk'.
Eric Jonklaas, president of the Umpires Committee, says batsmen will walk when they know that their wicket has been taken.
Carl Bradfield, Head of Cricket at St Andrew's, says that boys aren't explicitly coached to walk, even though they will do so in a match.
Melville Daniels, captain for the Willows side, has personal experience of winning the 'Fair Play' award at one of the previous Pineapple Tournaments for walking.
In general, etiquette is followed for the sake of preserving the spirit of the game, and Broad has completely disregarded it.
