Search results

As peace offerings go, that's up there with Chamberlain's bit of paper. I am not embarrassed at all. It's not me that is condoning or apologising for cheating. I will be seeing EXACTLY what some of you say the next time this issue crops up against England, and see how you all spin it then when...

You can't win. You say something that is wrong to try and prove whatever. I highlight the fact that it is wrong. You could say 'Oh, I didn't know'. But actually I'm a pedant. Where's that Wozza facepalm smilie...got it. :wozza:

Told ya. Total surrender :)

Factually incorrect. Calling fouls is one of the referee's jobs. A lot of the time they just don't need to, as the players do it. Occasionally they refs will need to call it if say a waistcoat touches a ball that the player can't see or wouldn't have felt. You often hear player and referee...

Yes I do/did, and yes most of the time you know, not always with pad-bat/glove, but usually. And if you say Haddin definitely knew (has he said that? I don't need to hear Broad say it) than yes it would apply to him too.

And for what its worth, I am happy to put my cards on the table and say I have a lot to do with snooker where the culture is very different. Players, top players even at crucial times in finals, regularly call fouls on themselves. You might like cricket get the odd rogue match-fixer, but that is...

Maybe there is no argument here. There are those who are happy to condone/be apologists for what he did, and those that aren't, and never the twain etc You are always going to have a grey area with small nicks, always. And I would never, nor have I, used the world cheating for that. Because you...

Any time you want to make something up and attribute it to me, feel free. Although you might as well hold up a banner saying 'I'm losing this argument'.

Sorry, why is it so hard for you to understand that the blatant nature of the incident is what this is all about, and what distinguishes it? It isn't that difficult a concept.

Given the blatant nature of the Broad incident, I see very little difference between the two. It went beyond neutral, in my view. If what Broad did wasn't against the spirit of the game, then you should scrap the rule under which Ramdin was banned, as it no longer applies to cricket.

That's quite a leap. You're going to have to explain exactly what you mean. Nothing on that scale and to that degree goes on in most Albion matches, as far as I am aware. But if you mean do I shrug my shoulders when a grinning Suarez handballs the ball into the Mansfield net and say "ah well...

I can't give you anything new. It's the law that says if you are caught, you are out. And it's especially true here because it was so blatant, he knew it, and the entire world has seen it. Broad has obviously been covered up here by the ECB media machine, and I'm not sure I can bring myself to...

The Broad debate reminds me very much of something that Michael Owen said last year at the Leaders in Football conference, that got him into a lot of trouble - and was all about where the lines fall between professionalism, sportsmanship and cheating. He basically admitted in an open forum in...

As I said above, the two incidents are in no way comparable. One was very borderline and lacking a crucial angle (the other side), one was blatant. In the same way I would cut a linesman slack if a player was an inch offside, but not if was 10 yards.

Of course he cheated. He has known since the age of about four what the rules are, and probably since about 10 what the 'spirit' of the game is. You middle the ball with your bat and someone catches it, you are out. Simples. End of discussion. You could apply the bad sportsmanship to the other...

I think whether the Aussies would have walked or not is irrelevant, a complete red herring morally and ethically. Broad cheated. He is a cheat. You can dress it up any way you like (and don't worry, plenty of media and ex-players will make excuses for him tomorrow, be apologists, come up with...