Gilchrist a cheater?

[Richard]

Give him seven.

Give him a perma IMO. Waste of an account.

 

[frey]

Give him a perma IMO. Waste of an account.

I thought that every individual on this forum had a right to express their views. You seem to speak with great authority in terms "waste of an account". Are you self reflecting? I have a view and I intend to voice that as needed.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Excessive use of emoticons is punishable by death in some countries. Count yourself lucky.

 

[SJS]

I thought that every individual on this forum had a right to express their views.

You most certainly do.....

... all eight of you

 

[frey]

You most certainly do.....

... all eight of you

I get the message. I'll use the smilies sparingly.

Now back to my point, Gilchrist is one of the few batsmen that walk before the umpire makes the decision of out. In an earlier post, I raised the point that we should focus our attention on the famous CHUCKER and not on Gilchrist. It is that point and not the smilies that needs to be discussed.

 

[frey]

Give him a perma IMO. Waste of an account.

Wake up to yourself. Try and stick to the topic of the thread.

 

[SJS]

I get the message. I'll use the smilies sparingly.

Now back to my point, Gilchrist is one of the few batsmen that walk before the umpire makes the decision of out.
.

I agree. In case you missed.....

I am amazed at whats being made of an impressive innovation by a cricketer. How does it make Gilchrist a cheat?

1. He made no attempt to hide it. In fact the whole world came to know about it because he showed it up for all to see. So much for his intentions being dishonourable. (which is different from being innovative)

2. Where is the law that says what kind of gloves can be worn by the batsman and what kind of inners inside them. I would love to read that.

3. Suppose we got a batsman tomorrow who was physically capable of handling a 3 kgs bat (hypothetically speaking) do you know what he would do to the ball even with slight mis hits ? As far as I can read the law in this regard says absolutely nothing about the weight of the bat or the thickness of the blade. Could you ban such a player or call him a cheat. Not unless he did it even AFTER you had modified the laws to outlaw such a bat?

One could think of other such situations. If a type of glove or bat or any other equipment enhances performance it can be considered illegal only if it contravenes any laid down laws regarding the same. If not, its for the law makers to take a call on whether this new development needs further legislation/ammendment/modification to/of existing laws.

Finally it is only about the legality (purely technical) of the matter. How does cheating come into it - except by the wildest stretch of imagination assisted by dollops of latent angst against team/player in question.

I raised the point that we should focus our attention on the famous CHUCKER and not on Gilchrist. It is that point and not the smilies that needs to be discussed
.

Now how is THAT pertinent to the issue raised in this thread?

 

[Dick Rockett]

Wake up to yourself. Try and stick to the topic of the thread.

Riiiiiiight. And discussing Muralitharan is on topic in what way?

 

[Burgey]

Haha. There's been nothing said in any reputable media outlets because it's pretty much the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Do the players have to get ICC sanctioned underwear before they can play international matches now?

Yep. And ban the new, light weight pads because they help them run faster as well. Make them shove two library books down their socks for protection to get an experience of how things really should be done.....

 

[LA ICE-E]

I am amazed at whats being made of an impressive innovation by a cricketer. How does it make Gilchrist a cheat?

1. He made no attempt to hide it. In fact the whole world came to know about it because he showed it up for all to see. So much for his intentions being dishonourable. (which is different from being innovative)

2. Where is the law that says what kind of gloves can be worn by the batsman and what kind of inners inside them. I would love to read that.

3. Suppose we got a batsman tomorrow who was physically capable of handling a 3 kgs bat (hypothetically speaking) do you know what he would do to the ball even with slight mis hits ? As far as I can read the law in this regard says absolutely nothing about the weight of the bat or the thickness of the blade. Could you ban such a player or call him a cheat. Not unless he did it even AFTER you had modified the laws to outlaw such a bat?

One could think of other such situations. If a type of glove or bat or any other equipment enhances performance it can be considered illegal only if it contravenes any laid down laws regarding the same. If not, its for the law makers to take a call on whether this new development needs further legislation/ammendment/modification to/of existing laws.

Finally it is only about the legality (purely technical) of the matter. How does cheating come into it - except by the wildest stretch of imagination assisted by dollops of latent angst against team/player in question.

yeah but not all innovations are accepted like the Aluminium bat or the use of earpiece. But neither of the now banned things made the players a cheat and so this doesn't either, although it may be banned. The law only says it has to be protective gear which it wasn't. And I think you got a good point that needs to be looked at too which is the law should be modified in that restricting how thickness(width) of the bat to a limit.

 

[Burgey]

One thing i want to know is why Francis was visting the Murali fans site. Unless your a biased Sri Lankan i can't see why you would want to visit that site. He seems to visit that site a fair bit for whatever reason.

Also on Gilly gloves they will get banned sooner or later, they are basically just performance enhansing. Its siginifcant like other things, but the main purpose in having them is to provide an extra benefit while batting, which previously wasn't avialable. Its not as if its there for comfort or extra protection.

But so do helmets.

 

[SJS]

Exactly. The point of the squash ball is that you can't grip the bat firmly with your bottom hand, making your top hand do all the work. It's an obstacle that is used to try and ensure that the bottom hand doesn't take over.

I think it is ingenius !

Coaches should use this to get youngsters who are having difficulty correcting strong bottom hand grips.

 

[SJS]

But so do helmets.

Exactly. Helmets make 'Larwoods' impotent

 

[SJS]

First of all. Who knows for sure it helps in getting "mis-hits go over the boundary" ? This is pure conjecture. In fact, the writer after having decided that Gilchrist MUST have had an ulterior motive went about thinking what that motive could be.

What Vic_O says about rectifying the top hand problem makes much more sense. If so, its a completely different matter as far as the motive is concerned. That makes use of words such as 'cheating' , 'cheater' etc ridiculous. I have seen some fans asking that the entire finals should be replayed. Juvenile stuff.

This squash ball issue has nothing to do with cheating.

It may or may not lead to ICC changing the laws. If they do not indulge in a knee jerk reaction (as they normally do to criticism), we may see nothing big come out of it.

If it truly helps in correcting bottom-hand-bias it should be welcomed and not condemned.

Just as the bent-arm and chucking debate was hijacked by nationalist agendas this too seems doomed to lose all objectivity.

Take away the fact that you are a Sri Lankan/Sri Lankan supporter, an Australian/Australian supporter and think about it dispassionately. Would there have been such a hue and cry if Gilchrist hadnt scored that magnificient 149? Now do you think that innings happened because of this. The answer has to be No to both these questions. That being the case, this is not a great matter as far as 'ethics' and spirit of the game are concerned.

Yes, ICC may decide that they need to spell out what is the general 'law' regarding innovations the players may want to bring about in their impliments, apparel, protective gear etc etc. They might clarify that except for , say, bat, ball, pads, etc etc everything else is out of the purview in 'current' laws. So that such uproars are discussed without insinuations as is done so often.

Whats the issue here ?

1. Was this illegal ? Clearly no. Not as per existing laws.

2. Does this offer the batsman an "unfair" advantage ? Let the ICC assess that and make modifications in the law if needed. If they do modify the laws to disallow that, it still doesnt affect the legality of what Gilchrist did.

3. Is this cheating ? Why ? Was he hiding it from anyone? Was he not the one to show it to the world. In fact, if it was to gain an advamntage, I would be very surprised at the audacity of a player to flaunt it to the world and invite such a reaction. Clearly Gilchrist didnt think so.

4. Did it affect the outcome of the match ? Those who think so need a visit to a doctor with a couch !

 

[pasag]

yeah but not all innovations are accepted like the Aluminium bat or the use of earpiece. But neither of the now banned things made the players a cheat and so this doesn't either, although it may be banned. The law only says it has to be protective gear which it wasn't. And I think you got a good point that needs to be looked at too which is the law should be modified in that restricting how thickness(width) of the bat to a limit.

Yeah, the Aluminium bat despite what some may say, was a cheap, rubbish bat that if anything made batting worse. Actually it says it in that article. It wasn't really an innovation, as much as it was a farce.

 

[adharcric]

Um, why not? It could be an awesome pair of underwear that makes you feel great and heaps comfortable and because of it you go out there and hit a hundred. It's the same stupidity as this. Would expect this sort of discussion on cricbuzz tbh, absolutely dire.

Cricbuzz does not stoop as low as this thread.

 

[marc71178]

Excessive use of emoticons is punishable by death in some countries. Count yourself lucky.

I think that's more the roll eyes - overuse of that is seen as a very serious crime...

 

[Anil]

this is ridiculous...he didn't even bother to hide it based on that youtube clip....a lot of fuss made over absolutely nothing...

 

[Richard]

Excessive use of emoticons is punishable by death in some countries. Count yourself lucky.

It simply reflects very poorly on the user - I never take anyone too seriously who overuses something like exclamation-marks (FRAZ excepted here, of course - he's an exceptional circumstance, that man) or emotiocons.

And the emotiocon being used every post, especially multiple times, simply suggests the poster is incapable of making a genuine point and is only posting in order to behave like a tool.

And when combined with non-stop banging-on the Murali-is-a-chucker line, it makes the case more questionable still.

 

[Burgey]

I see this issue has now been officially raised by an SL official, though Murali has said there's nothign wrong with what Gilly did, and Duleep Mendis hardly supported its referral to the ICC either.
All in all, seems like a case of