IN case we hadn’t used up every bit of hot air and bluster recently debating the James Horwill stamping incident, this week sport’s Mary Whitehouse brigade had another super villain in their sights, England’s Stu-art Broad.

Broad’s failure to walk during the second innings of England’s astonishing 14-run victory in the Ashes opener (after he’d clearly edged the ball) has provoked outrage in Australia with a general view from the Aussies that England got the better of the video technology decisions throughout the first Test.

No arguments here. It was a key battle that England won hands down.

Just two correct referrals from nine from Michael Clarke cost the Aussies.

Should Broad have walked? Probably. Though I understand why he didn’t, it is, in Clarke’s words, the job of the umpire to decide if someone is out.

But the vitriol since is over the top, some bleating that a batsman always knows if he’s hit the ball, which makes Broad a cheat.

If that is the case, why didn’t Brad Haddin walk right at the death when he nicked Jimmy Anderson?

The difference was, England were able to refer the decision as they didn’t waste their opportunities to do so, as Australia did.

Broad hasn’t ruined cricket and in an amazing Test that’ll be mostly remembered for a teenager being superb, cricket was en-hanced rather than damaged.

Soon we won’t be able to move for high horses.