View Poll Results: Should the Ball Tampering Law be Scrapped ?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES, as Woolmer says, (Ball Tampering) law 42.3 is an ***

    6 12.00%
  • NO, The law is fine as it stands today

    32 64.00%
  • Not Sure.

    3 6.00%
  • Don't scrap the law, but make some modifications

    9 18.00%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: Should the Ball Tampering Law be Scrapped ?

  1. #1
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230

    Should the Ball Tampering Law be Scrapped ?

    Bob Woolmer, the Pakistan coach, has called for the abolition of Law 42.3, which governs the condition of the ball and which was the centre of the controversy surrounding the forfeiture of the Oval Test.

    "The whole irony and tragedy of this particular story is law 42.3," he told The Guardian newspaper. "But law 42.3 is an ***. It was brought in because of ball-tampering with razor blades and bottle tops and everything else in the past, but that's been shoved out of the game now. I'd scrub out the law completely."

    For rest of the story :- http://www.icc-cricket.com/engvpak/c...ry/257514.html

    What do you all think ?

  2. #2
    International Captain Slow Love™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,080
    I vote no. Well, sort of. I don't think the law is exactly fine as it stands today, given recent events.

    Don't allow tampering of the ball, and penalize a player if they're caught doing it (on the field in that sense is fine by me, as long as it's been seen, or there is an explainable reason the team could be blamed, such as Bucknor's checks for mints/lollies etc). But if you are concerned about the ball's condition upon inspection, and have no evidence of a player actually tampering in such a way, just change the ball. I don't think there are any disastrous ramifications for such a policy.
    "Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
    - Linda

    "FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
    - Craig

  3. #3
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,264
    I dont think ball tampering should be allowed But something needs to be done anyway to make the balance a bit lee in favour of bowlers. I have often thought of a reduction in the number of overs by which a new ball may be taken. This would allow a ball that will swing again be available. Those who have spinners dont have to take it early.

    I would go to 60 overs or so.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator Fusion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,467
    Sanz, I think there should've been a fourth option: "Don't scrap the law, but make some modifications". I like Slow Love's idea. Penalize the player if caught cheating, but the umpire must have solid proof. If they don't have proof but they suspect tampering, simply allow them to change the ball without any penalty awarded.


  5. #5
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Fusion
    Sanz, I think there should've been a fourth option: "Don't scrap the law, but make some modifications". I like Slow Love's idea. Penalize the player if caught cheating, but the umpire must have solid proof. If they don't have proof but they suspect tampering, simply allow them to change the ball without any penalty awarded.
    I think this modification/clarification will come now.

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Fusion
    Sanz, I think there should've been a fourth option: "Don't scrap the law, but make some modifications". I like Slow Love's idea. Penalize the player if caught cheating, but the umpire must have solid proof. If they don't have proof but they suspect tampering, simply allow them to change the ball without any penalty awarded.
    Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I cant edit the poll, so I would try to request if any of the available mods/admins can make that change for me.


    Mods/Admins, can you please add 4th option to the poll :-

    4. "Don't scrap the law, but make some modifications"

  7. #7
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Love™
    I vote no. Well, sort of. I don't think the law is exactly fine as it stands today, given recent events.

    Don't allow tampering of the ball, and penalize a player if they're caught doing it (on the field in that sense is fine by me, as long as it's been seen, or there is an explainable reason the team could be blamed, such as Bucknor's checks for mints/lollies etc). But if you are concerned about the ball's condition upon inspection, and have no evidence of a player actually tampering in such a way, just change the ball. I don't think there are any disastrous ramifications for such a policy.
    exactly...changing the ball if it is not worthy to be played with should be fine...don't just make an assumption that the player/team has tampered with the ball and penalize them...

  8. #8
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,171
    I guess introducing tape ball instead of cricket ball will be of a great effect ......... And if people will start losing again then the tape temper issue will be raised and once they will learn that issue then the things are gonna settle down for a while and again a lice will appear and raise the tape ball controversy and then again people will think about getting to the rubber wind ball and so on .....
    Proud member of Twenty20-Is-Boring Society.
    T2IBS Media relations officer
    T2IBS official face
    R.I..P ........ Fardin Qayuumi
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Good luck at the hospital.
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    Fraz is always the best option IMO
    frazbest@hotmail.com

  9. #9
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,851
    I want to see more rules go in the favor of bowlers.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  10. #10
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,198
    The law's a bit flabby for mine. 42.3 (a) allows polishing the ball without the use of an artificial agent and players regularly use spit (natural occuring & all) on the ball. Mints & lollies are frowned upon tho, but is it, strictly speaking, forbidden to suck on one when playing? Does one's mint-enthused saliva constitute an artificial agent?

    I voted no, BTW, because one of the great strengths of cricket is that it allows the ageing of the match ball & hence differing types of bowler having greater or lesser influences in the course of the game. In other sports I watch (Football & Rugby mainly) the ball has to remain in pristine condition or it would be immediately changed. Indeed, the concept of a single match ball is very outdated in itself, I imagine about half a dozen are used in the course of a game.

    If we allowed players to openly "work" the ball I think we'd lose something.
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "as much a news event as an actual footballer, a worthy stop-start centre forward, but an all-time hyper-galactico when it comes to doing funny things with cars and hats, a player whose signing proves once again that the Premier League is still undoubtedly the best in the world when it comes to doing things with cars and hats."
    - Barney Ronay on Mario Balotelli

  11. #11
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Anil
    exactly...changing the ball if it is not worthy to be played with should be fine...don't just make an assumption that the player/team has tampered with the ball and penalize them...
    I don't see that solving anything. There was nothing in this case to suggest that the ball wasn't "worthy", there were just doubts as to whether the condition of the ball had been reached naturally or through tampering.

  12. #12
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    It would also be interesting to know what guys like Jack(Vic), who play cricket @ international level, think about the Ball Tampering laws.

  13. #13
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    I voted yes, but I'm more in agreement with Slow Love™ et al on the issue.

  14. #14
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson
    I don't see that solving anything. There was nothing in this case to suggest that the ball wasn't "worthy", there were just doubts as to whether the condition of the ball had been reached naturally or through tampering.
    if that's the case, the fielding team shouldn't be penalized based on an assumption, the umpires shouldn't have the power to do that...thought i made that clear....

  15. #15
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz
    It would also be interesting to know what guys like Jack(Vic), who play cricket @ international level, think about the Ball Tampering laws.
    In Australia, they've taken a real hardline stance of ball tampering, where umpires are told to warn players if they throw the ball into the ground too often (e.g. if you use a bounce throw over a distance of less than 50 metres), and you're not allowed to "load" one side of the ball.

    Loading (where you just slap on a bucketload of saliva into the ball) does tend to produce reverse swing, but for not nearly as long a time as the usual method. This is getting the whole ball as dry as possible, while still retaining a shiny side.

    I played one game where I was standing at mid-off after a fast bowler hit a batsman, and there was a pause in the game. The bowler was at the top of his mark, and joked to me "I can't believe the umpire hasn't taken the ball off me!" as he proceeded to turn his back to the play and scratch the buggery out of the ball with his fingernails.

    I don't know if I agree with SJS - often the best reverse swing comes after 60 overs mark, it's all dependant on the pitch and the care taken with the ball.

    In all, I think that the laws are fine, but the enforcement of them is overzealous and too batsmen orientated.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-05-2006, 06:23 PM
  2. Cricket Ball
    By dro87 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 20-02-2006, 11:47 AM
  3. Shahid Afridi...underated ?
    By sledger in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-02-2006, 03:19 PM
  4. Ball Tampering
    By Top_Cat in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 18-08-2002, 01:36 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •