Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 284

Thread: Gilchrist a cheater?

  1. #121
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Voltman View Post
    Give him seven.
    Give him a perma IMO. Waste of an account.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #122
    School Boy/Girl Captain frey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.

  3. #123
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,557
    Excessive use of emoticons is punishable by death in some countries. Count yourself lucky.
    Member of the Newtown Cricket Club since January '06 - "Per commissum ad taberna"
    Honorary Vice-President of the "Twenty20 Is Boring Society"

  4. #124
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    Quote Originally Posted by frey View Post
    I thought that every individual on this forum had a right to express their views.
    You most certainly do.....

    Quote Originally Posted by frey View Post
    ... all eight of you


  5. #125
    School Boy/Girl Captain frey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS View Post
    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.

  6. #126
    School Boy/Girl Captain frey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Give him a perma IMO. Waste of an account.
    Wake up to yourself. Try and stick to the topic of the thread.

  7. #127
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    Quote Originally Posted by frey View Post
    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.....

    Quote Originally Posted by SJS View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by frey View 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
    .
    Now how is THAT pertinent to the issue raised in this thread?

  8. #128
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by frey
    Wake up to yourself. Try and stick to the topic of the thread.
    Riiiiiiight. And discussing Muralitharan is on topic in what way?

  9. #129
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    40,405
    Quote Originally Posted by andyc View Post
    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.....
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

  10. #130
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS View Post
    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.

  11. #131
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    40,405
    Quote Originally Posted by chaminda_00 View Post
    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.

  12. #132
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    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.

  13. #133
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    But so do helmets.
    Exactly. Helmets make 'Larwoods' impotent

  14. #134
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    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 !

  15. #135
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by LA ICE-E View Post
    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.
    Rest In Peace Craigos
    2003-2012

Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Is it time for Gilchrist to give up ODIs?
    By Mister Wright in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 27-04-2007, 03:45 PM
  2. Kumar Sangakkara and Adam Gilchrist
    By PhoenixFire in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 17-12-2006, 10:56 PM
  3. Is Adam Gilchrist an overrated test batsman ?
    By Salamuddin in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 24-09-2006, 11:27 PM
  4. Adam Gilchrist - how good is he?
    By Francis in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 02-04-2006, 12:40 PM
  5. Gilchrist should retire from ODIs...
    By Mister Wright in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 27-01-2006, 05:19 PM

Posting Permissions

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