Cricket Expert & Columnist
Ashes 2013: Stuart Broad should face same action as Denesh Ramdin
Stuart Broad should face ICC action for behaving contrary to the spirit of the game, says Michael Holding.
Last Updated: 14/07/13 5:42pm
Broad stood his ground after edging spinner Ashton Agar to Michael Clarke at slip when England, who closed the day 261 runs ahead on 326-6, were 232 in front. Australia, with no reviews left, had no option but to accept umpire Aleem Dar's decision.
But Holding told Sky Sports that Broad should now face retrospective action because the ICC set a precedent earlier this year when they fined Denesh Ramdin - and suspended the West Indies wicketkeeper for two games - for contravening the spirit of the game when he did not admit that he had dropped Pakistan's Misbah-ul-Haq.
"Aleem Dar obviously thought the ball had come off the wicketkeeper's glove and the wicketkeeper's glove only," said Holding of the umpire Dar's mistake.
"Now, the replays showed that it was off the bat first. All of the Australians on the field knew that it was off the bat. Haddin knew perhaps that it had brushed his glove but Aleem Dar didn't think so and he said 'not out'. I don't think that you can't really blame the umpire.
"Australia wasted a couple of reviews. I think the review against Jonny Bairstow was just desperation because they needed a wicket at that point to try and get into the lower order and they figured 'well, let us try this one'. But that's not what the review was made for.
"I have always believed that when people are out they should get off the field. But I'm not saying that Broad should have walked in this instant. But what Ramdin did when he was suspended and fined is no different from what Broad has done.
"Ramdin was suspended and fined because the ICC said his actions were contrary to the spirit of the game. He did not appeal - he just did not tell the umpire that the ball had come out of his glove. That was wrong. He knew the ball had hit the ground and all he did was throw the ball towards the umpire.
"He should have said 'gentlemen, we can't appeal for that; that is not out'.
"Broad played the ball into first slip's hand and stood there. He has done the same thing. Is that not contrary to the spirit of the game? Broad pretended that he did not hit the ball. Ramdin pretended that he didn't drop the catch.
"I'm not saying either one of them is right. I said at the time that Ramdin did wrong. But if the ICC are going to fine Ramdin 50 per cent of his match fee and suspend him for a game for saying that his action is contrary to the spirit of the game, I'd say that his action isn't the only one that is contrary to the spirit of the game. What Stuart Broad did was contrary to the spirit of the game.
"The ICC have opened up a very dicey situation - their actions will determine what takes place in the future as far as their definition of what is contrary to the spirit of the game is.
"I care nothing about who wants to walk and who doesn't. I care about the ICC taking the stance that they took against Ramdin and the grounds on which I did so."