Damn right it is sloppy. So too, the word 'wilful'. Did they even bother to have some legal eyes peruse the laws? If interpretation relies on the intent of the rule then they should have defined the intentions at the beginning of each rule.I don't think there is a hard and fast rule, it's dependent on context.
Edit: though this is an example of pretty sloppy usage in a rule/ law making context.
I understand he is a far better umpire than *****.I think we need to ask Biryani Pillow about this. Did you know he's an umpire?
*zoraxI feel dirty saying this, but I agree with *****.
Wilful doesn't always mean intentional, there's an older meaning (who'd have thought cricket uses words that have meanings that have passed into antiquity) that's more similar to headstrong and stubborn - a wilful act being one carried out without care or thought for consequences. It covers this sort of situation rather well - Pollard is wilful in his intention to annoy Bumrah by swinging his arm in his face, and probably hasn't even thought of any consequences of doing so. Except there are consequences whether he likes it or not, and the use of wilful in the rules allows the umpire to punish those unintended consequences.
#NotAllUmpiresTread lightly guys. Walk down this path of fuzzy interpretations and we might just come out the other side with a religious text.
So many ***** essays in this thread that no one read.
.*zorax
Don't give him the recognition of capitalising his username.
If he has umpired county cricket then he absolutely is and I'd love to hear his take on this.I understand he is a far better umpire than *****.
*zorax
Don't give him the recognition of capitalising his username.