what the rules say (iirc) is that shining is 'preserving the condition' whereas scuffing is 'altering the condition' or something to that effect. bollocks in other words.
RIP Philip Hughes - 1988-2014
Potential hater of abilities. Blocked on twitter by Michael Vaughan, Brad McNamara and AtlCricket for my hard hitting truths.
It's why the 'don't bounce the ball' in rule is unenforcable. Because there's no doubt that England do it to scuff the ball up but they've got a perfectly reasonable answer for why they do it when they're pressed.
Someone on Sky Sports News put it perfectly.
All teams will admit that they alter the condition of the ball. No-one will admit to ball tampering.
The "bouncing the ball in" rule only gets applied when it's not very subtle; i.e. throwing the ball back from mid-off into the keeper on the bounce, when there's not a run out on or anything. Never get pulled up if you are trying to go for a run-out or throwing it in from the boundary.
And while some guys are good at throwing a "flying saucer" in to get the ball to hit the rough side, most of the time you don't really care, just rough the ball up and try and shine/smoothen out the smooth side. White balls don't really "shine up" anyway.
Even if you couldn't get reverse swing using such tactics, you would probably use the same tactics to try and soften the ball as quickly as possible, especially on slower wickets.
well that's one area that umpires can legitimately crack down upon then.
Just read through this thread. Yeah look anyone seriously advocating legalising ball tampering needs to think things through a bit more carefully. Balls would be getting replaced every two overs ffs, you could literally just pull it apart if you didn't like it. Not to mention the massive variable bounce that could be gained by splitting the seam which would just be **** viewing, not skill based at all.
Exit pursuing a beer
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)