Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
Excessive use of emoticons is punishable by death in some countries. Count yourself lucky.
Member of the Newtown Cricket Club - "Per commissum ad taberna"
Honorary Vice-President of the "Twenty20 Is Boring Society"
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.
Riiiiiiight. And discussing Muralitharan is on topic in what way?Originally Posted by frey
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
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.
Future Of Cricket
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 !
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)