Test match cricket tests many things. Once upon a time in the days of amateurism it tested a man's moral fibre - his ability to play fairly in keeping with the unwritten rules of sportsmanship. That was then, this is now, the days of full time professionals playing for keeps, whatever it takes. When England's allrounder, Stuart Broad was blatantly caught behind in the slips during the first test at Trent Bridge the Australian team expected him to walk, so obvious was the nick. When he refused to go they howled at the umpire in disbelief that he hadn't given Broad out. Clearly the umpire was on a mental holiday at the crucial moment. Video replays later proved that Broad hadn't just nicked the ball he'd hit it in the middle of the bat. Subsequently the extra runs he accumulated decided the match in England's favour.
Did he cheat? It depends on how you look at it. There is no written law in cricket that says a batsman must walk if he knows he's out, the decision to dismiss a player is always the umpire's or in this day and age the third umpire using DRS video technology. So technically he wasn't cheating, he simply played by the rules as they stand. But cricket has unwritten rules, moral rules, and on that front the answer is not so clear cut. Without doubt he knew he'd hit it, so did the Australians, as did the commentators and probably most of the crowd. Only the umpire missed it. If cricket was a game of ethics Stuart Broad would be branded a blatant cheat for all time and hounded out of the game. But how many batsmen can say they have always walked when they know they've hit the ball? Alas professional sport has moved beyond moral considerations even in cricket. In the end we must accept the umpire's decison for better or worse, have a grumble at the occasional injustice and move on. These things have a way of balancing out.