The Gentlemen's Game??

Should Broad have walked?  That's the question on every armchair sportsman's lips after Friday's events.  For those from Mars, we're talking cricket and Broad is an English batsman who quite clearly hit a ball which was caught by an Australian fielder.  For some reason the umpire didn't see it and therefore turned down Australia's appeals.  Broad must have known he had hit it, so should he have given himself out as it were, rather than simply stand there and go with the umpire's decision - or rather non-decision?  In my book, he should have walked, but I'm afraid that money has tainted the game of cricket, as it has rugby football (association football has long been a lost cause) and now winning takes precedence over sportsmanship every time.  Shame, but that's the way it is - bit ironic that you have to look to snooker, which is irrevocably associated in many people's minds with dingy pub back-rooms and Woodbines, as just about the only game where a player will take it upon himself to be the custodian of the rules, and call a foul against himself even though no-one else has seen it.