Finally we have a verdict from the law makers.
"MCC’s Laws Sub-Committee has issued a statement in which it concludes that “the incident could not be classed either as contravening the Law or as breaching the Spirit of the Game.”
The debate gone all over the internet to office trains now has to come to an end. There were questionable grey areas in Gilly's act, so no one could possibly say Sri Lankans are "sore losers", for raising this issue. Now, that the "Guardians of the Laws of Cricket" saying that Adam Gilchrist haven't done anything wrong, we have to admit that.
"In this case (Adam Gilchrist in the ICC Cricket World Cup Final), apparently the addendum to the inside of the batting gloves was not for protection from injury, but to improve the way the batsman gripped the bat handle. This should not be considered unfair. Similarly, it has never been considered unfair for batsmen to use two grips on the bat handle."
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Gilchrist Cleared by MCC "the Guardians of the Laws of Cricket"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Question: If Gilchrist were in need of a runner would the umpires have insisted that the runner put a squash ball inside his glove too in order to be 100% synchronous with the batsman?
Does the runner have to be 100% synchronous with the batsman? I mena I know absolutely nothing about this.
If thats the case, I suppose further questions are that, whether the runner is of the same height, weight, fitness and speed.
A runner needs to wear exactly the same sporting gears, worn by the batsman he's running for, at the time he's injured. That is, cricketing gears such as pads, head gear, gloves etc. Since MCC is simulating the squash ball to the second grip (rubber) on a bat handle, I don't think it's necassary for the runner to use a squash ball inside his gloves. Cuz, there's no law to say the runner also required to have two grips on the bat handle, if the injured batsman had two on his bat.
But the dodgy part for me in this statement by MCC is ............"apparently the addendum to the inside of the batting gloves was not for protection from injury, but to improve the way the batsman gripped the bat handle. This should not be considered unfai"
Now, under the same principle what if a bowler wanted to improve the way he grip the ball? Isn't it fair for him to use some plaster on his palm or fingers?
Again more dodgy areas in this statement... "not for protection from injury, but to improve the way the batsman gripped the bat handle. This should not be considered unfai"
improve the way the batsman gripped the bat handle = enhancing the performance
This suggest that, if some one use any forign material inside the permitted clothing, to prevent from injuries (Which I feel is quite innocent effort) it is unfair. But, if some one do the same thing for enhancing his performance during the match, it's fair. Am I the only one who think it should be the other way?
We have seen many criminals escape at courts, because there's no enough evidence of no law to prove what they've done is a crime.
Gilchrist also the same. A criminal escaped thanks to loop holes in the law.
If the intent was to enhance ability then it certainly is cheating.
I agree with lanka. If he wanted to enhance performance and ability then it is cheating. I am so excited for the India v. Bangladesh Tour. I heard the India v. Bangladesh Tour is available as LIVE Video and Video On Demand on broadband at MediaZone Cricket: http://cricket.mediazone.com
MediaZone Cricket is a new broadband service with LIVE cricket, chat and news. Check it out!
About the bowler reinforcing his grip...there are two things to consider in that case: 1) Is whatever the bowler is using to grip the ball better making it difficult for the batsman to see the ball? In 1992, Dean Jones complained to the umpire about Ambrose's wrist band saying that it was making it difficult to see the bowl. Umpire promptly told Ambrose to remove the band. Of course, a furious Curtly absolutely destroyed the Aussies after that. The band didn't help strengthening his grip, but the same principle applies.
2)The cricket ball is a completely different animal. To this day, no one can accurately explain why cloudy conditions make a cricket ball swing more. Or how, the very same conditions, makes a ball go dead straight.
It could be argued that an artificial grip on the ball is giving an unfair advantage to the bowler under "existing" laws that were written to stop artificial tampering of the ball.
Increasing the grip on the bat has not been outlawed..hence Gilchrist was within the laws.
Seems perfectly cut out to me, if somewhat slightly skewed in favour of batsman. But then again cricket has always been a batsman's game.
W G Grace once told a bowler, after he had been hit on the pad and the bowler appealed. "The crowd came to see me bat, not see you bowl." He then threw the ball back to the bowler.
Post a Comment