Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Latest Matches => Topic started by: Sambo on August 25, 2008, 09:21:20 AM
-
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/366150.html
heres a square up for the beijing thing danny. all i have to say
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
CHEATERS
On a more serious note. do you think this was cheating, good tactics or bending the rules. if you havent already seen what i think theres a problem
-
Well considering the aussies come out with all that crap on their lips and some of it's gone by the end of the session i'm wondering who else is suspicious.
That's the past," Clarke said in Brisbane. "Right now we're looking forward to playing Bangladesh in Darwin. In 15 months we'll get our chance to play England. It doesn't bother me at all right now."
It seems Clarke's not that bothered, it just goes to show the aussies can't stand being beaten.
-
I dont think its really cheating... he only used his saliva (Which happened to have some sugar in it!)
-
keeper i dont think they deliberately lick their lips to shine the ball. Its sun protection for crying out loud. And seeing people sweat it rubs off. And no we can lose. take a bloody joke.
Still it was a violation of the rules, im mean saurav ganuly got suspended for it
-
I can't believe you are still so sore about losing in 2005.... grow up and move on...
-
It's illegal, it's tampering with the ball, it's cheating.
But if you folks are happy with cheating then it's your call.
I like the grow up and move on bit, you obviously condone cheating.
-
It's illegal, it's tampering with the ball, it's cheating.
But if you folks are happy with cheating then it's your call.
I like the grow up and move on bit, you obviously condone cheating.
So are they going to ban mints on the cricket field? How about if a player sucks the mint before the start of the game, the same effect is achieved but how can it be prevented. Against the spirit of the game as it may be, and I believe that it is, unfortunately the spirit of the game amounts to very little in a tangible sense. I think that the England players played the laws and not the spirit of the game which makes them clean and very dirty at the same time.
Anyway, it's hardly red hot news, he used to drop them out of his pockets regularly in the field and you would have to be pretty naive not to realise what they were for
-
I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion. I live in Aus and the Sports Section of online newspapers is full of whingers. Honestly bubble gum can have the same effect because it induces saliva as well. And we all see Mr. Ponting, Hayden, Clarke and all the other lot do the same thing. Im sure they are not trying to impress the ladies on the field by keeping their breath minty fresh. They use gum because it does the same. Induces saliva and also has sugar. Reverse Swing anyone?
-
It is the sugar in the lolly that does the trick when mixed with saliva. You of course generaly only put it on one side of the ball and then shine it. Keeps a rosy glow and a smooth surface going for a looong time. Now who was it who got cuaght with barley sugar in India?
-
If we start talking about the spirit of the game, lets change the topic to the Aus v India series in which some Australians caused much controvesy through blatant cheating. I can understand not walking from a nick. But some of the catches in that series... etc.
-
Symonds, Clarke, Ponting all come to mind in that seies.
-
I'm not sure how illegal this is, for example at tea I have a battenburg cake sometimes. Does the sugar on this help swing the ball for our bowlers, and if so is this ball tampering? How would you define what's ball tampering or not? I've taken mints or chewing gum onto the field before as it helps me concentrate, not anything to do with the ball swinging but as I occasional shine the ball have I been guilty of ball tampering?
It's impossible to monitor what is and what isn't illegal with this kind of tampering.
-
Using sweets to make your saliva more shiny is not illegal in my opinion.
Rubbing vaseline on your bald bonce and then using that to shine the ball, as someone I know does, is illegal.
-
dobbs, we arent sore about the bloody loss. we hacked it and moved on. Secondly, we played within the laws of the game. Clarke, symonds and ponting all choose not to walk. That abides by the laws of the game. If you want to blame someone, blame the umpires ( no offense art) they made the decision. I mean, does vaughn walk, does bell walk, does pietersen walk? No they dont.
i believe the rule is, that lollies/gum/mints may be sucked if they are not deliberately used to ball tamper. Also it states that only, sweat and saliva may be used to polish the ball. He even said he did it on purpose.
-
Heck no offence taken, I just wish we would get the same 'allowances' as batsmen do. I mean to say how many play and misses are they allowed before someone appeals on a close one or an LBW?
Everyoine now sees that umpires get it wrong more often because of all the technology the good old commentators have to help them see what is happening.
Is it impossible to monitor that sort of tampering? Well the answer is no it is not as a matter of fact. The question becomes; What happens when you discover it? Well most times there are protestations of innocence.
Law 42.3 covers this pretty well.
In the middle of last season I did one day of a lower grade game. During the fifth over I watched the cover fielder wipe sunscreen from his face, carefully wipe it on one side of the ball and polish it vigorously. Two balls later he did the same thing. Hmmm. I called the captain over and the fielder and asked what was going on? They professed innocence for around 20 seconds then admitted that they were cheating. They had never seen me umpire before and were trying it on. So we found a ball in roughly the same condition and proceeded.
In higher echelon cricket it has become not that the umpires can or can't see it but whether or not the officials will back the umpires. Ask Hair about this. It has almost become a game of we dare you to report us because if you do the final arbiters in the whole scenario will not back the umpires, recent history has shown that and this has emboldened even the lowest grade teams to try strange things out in all countries.
-
Well said art
-
dobbs, we arent sore about the bloody loss. we hacked it and moved on. Secondly, we played within the laws of the game. Clarke, symonds and ponting all choose not to walk. That abides by the laws of the game. If you want to blame someone, blame the umpires ( no offense art) they made the decision. I mean, does vaughn walk, does bell walk, does pietersen walk? No they dont.
i believe the rule is, that lollies/gum/mints may be sucked if they are not deliberately used to ball tamper. Also it states that only, sweat and saliva may be used to polish the ball. He even said he did it on purpose.
You are missing my main point. Catches that didn't carry, that was my main point. Fool.
-
Hmmm, having gone through the study of the current technology available on catches it is inconclusive to say the least. Of course a batsman who stands his ground is doing nothing worng, is he??? Depends on which side you back by the looks of things.
There are times when players don't know and umpires do and there are times umpires don't know and the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.
So what do you suggest? Do the umpires have the final decision? Does the catcher have the final decision? Does the batsman decide when he is caught? On a close call experience in the middle shows the last person to be thinking rationaly is the batsman.
Now before you answer the above questions relate your answers to all levels of cricket not just electronicaly (and often inconclusively) monitored big matches.
-
and ponting had a carbon backed bat? hmm seems fair!
-
Interesting point about the carbon backed bat.
Law 6.2 applies. Did it contravene that Law?
-
i'm pretty sure it did, but that's my opinion. Assuming i have the right law, the carbon may add longevity to the bat. but will pro players that get bats when they want, care about this? I think not. The carbon adds density and ''flex'' to the bat while keeping weight down. And it surely does contavene law 6.1? Your views art?
-
Hmmm there is the problem. 6.2 is interesting and given the amount of rubbish bat makers put on their bats these days and what you can buy on the internet who knows. No it does not contavene 6.1 because 6.2 adds a rider to 6.1 so the two must be read together.
This little discussion is to part of bigger discussions hopefully in the Umpires section of the board at a later date.
As for your discussion about free bats etc, I have seen more than one top batsman mortified when he broke his favourite bat.
-
The ball was tampered with: It was illegal and a low act, and the english should have admitted it.
Ponting had a carbon backed bat: at the time was it ILLEGAL? NO so he was breakign no law, well as a matter of fact carbon bats are not illegal, they are not allowed in international crickert, now then dan griffin is ball tamperign allowed in ANY form of cricket?
The Catches depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on, to me and most aussies it looked as though they were fine, to most indians they thought it dropped short.
Now you pommies who are having a go at walking you are the biggest HYPOCRITES in the world. I have never seen KP walk nor most of your team so shut up. When you do it then you can take shots but they say people in glass houses should not throw stones
-
How illegal is rubbing saliva on a ball though? The sweet has dissolved and has started on it's way through the digestion process is it not then part of your body and it's fluids? I've not seen the MCC come out and say it's illegal yet either. Also remember this has only been printed to sell more Daily Mails and more books.
-
Firstly cricket bats must be made of wood, period.
Rubbing saliva is not illegal. The Law startes "provided that no artifical substance is used" so sugar from a lolly in your saliva is an artifical substance, period. Bush lawyers are not required the Law is simple and clear.
I would like to see the MCC come out and say it was not illegal. Heck I expect the ICC to do that, I don't think they have the faintest comprehension of the Laws at present but not the MCC.
-
The Catches depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on, to me and most aussies it looked as though they were fine, to most indians they thought it dropped short.
The catches were dropped. Benson & Bucknor sealed the win.
How could they let that match slip? It was at the SCG, Sachin was on song as was the seamers. The feeling of a loss swells up. So they decided to cry, whinge and claim dropped catches.
My view point anyway.
-
Look waht I found! Lol!
(http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll298/el_presedente/untitled-1.jpg)
Please dont bicker about the teams involved; I thought the banner is hilarious.
-
England can talk can't they. all nations claimed dropped catches. And calling me a fool, when you were being very vague. Its kind of hard when you only say Clarke, ponting and symonds come into mind. Symonds never came close to putting the ball near the ground. Dickhead, hey thats some good alliteration
Dobbs the Dickhead.
Secondly master,, howcould you definately say the catches were dropped. You weren't there, you weren't right in front of them.
-
Secondly master...... You weren't there, you weren't right in front of them.
Sure I was!!! Look at my profile picture. I was there and saw the whole thing i was at the other end when my mate Ganguly pushed one to slips.
Symonds nicked and didnt walk! Ponting has butter fingers and he was scared of Mr. Ishant Sharma.
Oh, Bucknor and Benson put on a good partnership to shatter the Indian line-up and to send the tourists packing. They have set quite a standard for aspiring umpires to schieve, we hope the day will come when umpires can lead a team to victory through bungled vision and pressure from the opposing captain.
Remember when Ponting signalled to one of the umpires when one of the Australian's took a suspect catch? He turned to the umpire and signalled out! Since when does a player call the shots? Especially the captain. He isnt the third umpire? Or am i mistaken?
-
It was illegal and a low act,
I wouldn't mind a discussion, it's when people start saying things like this that I become completely one sided, make points that are intended to annoy and start ferociously defending my points. If I said that catches that didn't carry that the Aussies claimed were 'low' I would be ripped to shreds.
-
The greatest commentators are those in the stands 100 yards from the action or those in the commentary box with every electronic aid imaginaable. The electronics do not conclusively show a catch has carried or not if it is close.
I saw Dujon when keeping drop a catch and in the act of rolling over pick it up and claim it and the Australian batsman was given out. You want I should go on about how Kasper wasn't out in that fateful test because his hand was not on the bat or how many dismissals Martyn had in the same series where the ultra slow replays proved he wasn't out because he hit it.
Umpires make mistakes, players make many more mistakes, commentators are abyssmal on certain issues and spectators are worse.
If you truly want to help become an umpire and lift the standards if you are that good.
As for ganguly well frankly getting to the Indians I am heartily sick and tired of not seeing Tendulkar being given out a few times a match when hawkeye shows he is clearly out and I am heartily sick and tired of dumb commenators expressing joy that he wasn't given out by some commentating quirk. Never mind that the fools sitting at the top of the stand could tell he was out, just pat the umpire on the back for saying no because it would have been a 'brave' decision saying out. Pitching middle and off, hitting the pad slightly towards middle and would have taken middle half way up and saying no isn't a brave decision it is poor umpiring. But hey who is counting let's pick on a few players for claiming catches that the tv thought fell short or a batsman refusing to walk. Asak the famous David lamb about not walking in a County and bragging about how the umpire made a mistake. Look what happened to him. But it's okay with him I guess.
It is simple, play it by the laws, get rid of the elctronics and let the umpires decide. Umpires from the home country weren't good enough for some and now we have neutral umpires they still aren't good enough.
As I have said, there is a big opportunity out there for folks who claim to see all these to become umpires, rise to the top and improve umpiring.
Bet you won't though.
-
It's amazing how the aussies have to find excuses for their losses. Ponting was completely out of order when he told the umpire it was out, also I'm sure Warne used to shine the ball, Ponting does as well and their both nearly always chewing gum, that's an artifical substance as well isn't it?
-
Bloody hell keeper i was making a f**king joke with the cheating thing. We do not make excuses for our losses. Clarke even said they've moved on. But when the act is deliberate mate, then it is considered cheating. But shining balls has nothing to do with spinning the ball. spin is decided by the amount of revolutions on the ball and what type of surface it hits. drift is decided by how much air is displaced by the revolution. and dip is the same principle just with topspin rather than side spin. So please just cut out that we have to find excuses for our losses. its untrue and theres not evidence to back it.
Also may we recount back to the paul collingwood incident, he told the umpire it was out. sure not the same circumstance as ponting. yet same principle. Ponting thought that he had taken the catch 100 percent. same as collingwood, thought that the nz bloke was 100 perent out too.
-
You seriously are stupid arn't you. How did you get onto spin, 'cause i mentioned Warne? I was saying he shined the ball it wasn't necessarily for him infact it probably was for your faster bowler's.
-
geez mate whenever you say waren you mean spin
-
Cmon lets get back to a 'structured' debate now not a slanging match.
I dont think there is a team in world cricket that doesnt 'ball tamper' to be honest!
-
I disagree leo.
But the pity is the ICC will not stand behind an umpire or umpires who are prepared to do something about it.
-
yeah, mate its the icc, weakest bunch of idiots ever
-
nozza your views are biased, and yes carbon bats are illegal, the blade may only be made of wood, and may have materials to improve the longevity.
-
I love how australia got shredded for "claiming catches" yet you blokes from england seem to think that racial abuse is perfecly ok to be looked over,
How do you justify that? Oh then the bloke goes the slap on his TEAM MATE tak about team player!!
-
I didn't know Harbajan was English.
-
Does anyone here really think that the shinning of the ball using sugar from sweets in the saliva is the most illegal act carried out on a pitch. I would love to allude to other things that go on in most matches, including todays one day that would overturn the result and it is done by the Australians too but cannot tell so don't ask. The better standard you play will allow you to know how to bend or break the rules in more effective ways than sugary spit.
Banger is trying to make headlines to boost his book sales, nothing more. All you offended Aussies cannot understand this or know very little of the on pitch antics.
-
mate ive said it was joke. A sked what your opinion was. aussies are not offended.
-
Hmmm Talisman. I provided a rather long answer to another thread about umpiring now and 20 years ago.
I left out a whole section on 'sharp' practice and cheating. By cheating I mean the knowing subversion of the Laws and competition rules. That is perhaps an overstatement because a large proportion of players have no practical idea of either.
On of the great pities in cricket around the world is that various clubs and associations have openly condoned cheating and openly condoned the bullying of umpires who wish to stamp it out. This of course can now be traced back to the hysterical reactions of various associations and the ICC towards an umpire(s) who actually wants to do something about it. I am doing a winter final this weekend. It will be a good hard fought game. There will be a few try on appeals and hopefully the umpiring team won't fall for any of them. There will be a little banter but almost all of it will be in good humour and the team who plays best this weekend will win.
Both captains will respect the laws and rules. If someone wants to fiddle with them then there will be consequences.
So you can go out and play at the margins or outright cheat, you can bullying the umpires knowing a large percentage will back down and let you get away with it because many associations will back a player first. And of course in your cheating mode you will blame the umpire for a 'bad' decision, at least in your eyes, that cost you the game or a wicket etc but in the end perhpas many umpires are smart, they let you desicrate the game and they let it be your call.
-
Its legal he is using his own body fluids - are you going to stop people eating before and during matches?