Cricket

[Stubby]

"We plan to raise the issue with the ICC in June so that there can be a discussion as to whether using an object inside the glove should be permitted or not."

There is nothing unethical or not within the spirit of the game IMO.

Things I have had inside my batting gloves over the years:

Batting Inners

Tape

Cotton Padding for a bruised knuckle

Band-Aids

I have also had up to three grips on the handle (as I have pretty small hands) and that is not illegal/unethical.

I cannot see any reason why a batsman should not be allowed to put a squash ball in his glove if he wants to. Personally, I think it would get in the way of my grip and would be too much of a distraction.

[delete this account pls]

I just think it's amusing that the Sri Lankans are alleging unethical conduct.

[DJDonegal]

hey ireland beat pakistan as well.

Don't worry, that's one little fact I'm not going to forget for a while

[DemonKing]

I just think it's amusing that the Sri Lankans are alleging unethical conduct.

Particularly since they've been fielding a blatant chucker for the last dozen years or so...;-)

Seriously though sticking half a squash ball into your glove is not going to turn you from McGrath into Bradman. If I were the Lankans I'd be more angry at the official who somehow figured that there was time for 38 overs/side before darkness fell...the closing stages of their chase were pretty unfair IMO given the deteriorating light (even before the endgame fiasco).

[Jeor]

The Gilchrist squash ball thing - it's a bit of a hazy line, but things in cricket are always hazy lines as far as what you can and can't allow, especially for things that aren't explicitly covered in the rules. Wearing inner gloves is fine, having two grips on your handle is fine (which I did too), etc. I suspect that having an arm brace that locks your hand to the bat in the perfect position is probably not going to be allowed. Where the line is I don't know, but I have a feeling the MCC or ICC wouldn't know either. They tend to make retrospective rulings, two examples being:

1) Dennis Lillee's aluminium bat. For those of you who don't know the incident, Dennis Lillee once came out to bat using an aluminium version, I guess using the reasoning that in baseball, aluminium is a superior product than wood. Amazingly there was nothing in the laws that prevented this, but if my reading memory serves me correctly, I believe the umpires ended up disallowing it after a while. In the laws of the game the umpires have on-field discretionary powers to make any reasonable ruling they like if the situation is not covered under any of the other rules of the game. I think it was the MCC at the time that amended the laws of the game to disallow any non-wood bat.

2) Hansie Cronje's earpiece at the 1999 World Cup. I remember this one after seeing it on the news during the day. In a group match versus India, Cronje wore an earpiece that allowed him to directly communicate with Bob Woolmer, who was then the South African coach (sad that the both of them met tragic ends). Again, there was nothing in the laws of the game that prevented such a thing - one guesses because the laws of the game were over a century old and didn't account for technology - but the umpires disallowed it under their emergency clause, and the ICC banned it later on.

So the pattern seems to be that on-field umpires can take any sort of situation in hand with a reasonable attitude, and that the ICC will close up the loophole afterwards. Of course, Gilchrist would not have been 'caught' if he hadn't announced it himself, but I think it's partly the responsibility of the opposing team to appeal to the umpire during the game, not just the umpire's responsibility to look at those things. The Sri Lankans didn't know. If Gilchrist kept his mouth shut, they wouldn't ever have known.

If they had appealed against it during the game, I assume the umpires would have made some sort of on-the-spot decision and then the ICC would make a formal ruling to clarify the situation afterwards. But I don't think the situation is going to come up often. In this day and age there aren't many ways you can surreptitiously 'cheat' on an international cricket field with cameras all around.

[Vestrit]

I might be wrong here, but I don't think this is the first time Gilchrist has used a squash ball in a game.

I use two bat grips too (just so I can join the Jeor and Stubby club...). Helps prevent my bottom hand getting too dominant

[ithanos]

I think using the term "squash ball" was unfortunate - even if it was actually a squash ball or part of which was used. If Gilchrist has said "I identified an area in my batting grip which required attention and employed a spacer to reposition that grip" then that would have been that last word heard of the matter apart from coaches the world wide emphasizing the importance of net training and analyzing technique in the face of poor form (as Gilchrist was trying to address).

But I think the mere mention of using a squash ball in a batting grip conjures up a misguided image of a spring loaded grip technique guaranteed to turn singles into 3's and 2's into 4's. You could walk out with a broken broomstick and it'll be Excalibur returned!

There is still the skill in eying the ball and presenting the bat with precision and timing which was displayed for all to see.

He might as well have also 'fessed up to using the prime fillet steak of some endangered mammal, marinated in the rendered juices of some rare plant as padding for his gloves when he went out to keep wickets. (Those keeper mits are foul, you need industrial strength solvents just to get the reek off your hands. I always politely decline and say I left my gloves at home when asked to keep)

[IheartTesla]

Lets not go down the chucking route again, eh? The Sri Lankan team has no problems with the squash ball method, in fact, Murali himself was quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald as saying he had no problems with it and batting with a ball in your glove was no walk in the park. It's just one Sri Lankan official who raised this complaint.

Personally, I think it's no big deal myself. Similar to wearing a wristband in tennis.

[Maltaran]

Particularly since they've been fielding a blatant chucker for the last dozen years or so...;-)

I feel obliged to defend the man I named myself after, but I'm feeling too lazy at the moment, so suffice it to say that the ICC has ruled his action legal (and Don Bradman said that Hair calling Murali for throwing was "the worst example of umpiring I've ever seen")

[delete this account pls]

Heh, I actually wasn't even thinking of Murali (I do find his action suspect but the ICC made it's decision on that a long time ago and that's that as far as I'm concerned), but rather of the Sri Lankan board, or specifically a certain member called Arjuna Ranatunga, aka the captain who used to fake injuries and get a runner because he was too fat and lazy to run himself.

[williamjm]

Apparently Kevin Pietersen might be injured ahead of England's first test against the West Indies. With Vaughan also injured (shame that didn't happen before the world cup rather than after ) and Trescothick apparently saying he's not quite ready to come back yet that does seem to suggest they'll need to find a new batsman from somewhere. Preferably they'd need to find two if they gave Flintoff the batting position his form deserves of 7. Any ideas who it will be? I guess Strauss, Cook, Bell and Collingwood will make up four of the top five. Joyce didn't really impress during the world cup, so it might be another fringe player gets another chance such as Owais Shah, Vikram Solanki or Robert Key, either that or they'll give a debut to a young batsman.

[DJDonegal]

I would say Owais Shah is in with a good shout as not only has he played for England before giving him vital experience, but he has started the county season pretty well by all accounts, though this I may have to check.

James Benning is pushing for an ODI slot - but I don't know enough about Surrey to say whether that was a fluke or anything (regarding his amazing knock in the world record breaking one day total). He's in the wrong league for me to pay much attention

Edit: Yep, Shah is averaging 110 in Div2 of the county championship with a 193 in the bag. Englishmen with higher averages in this league are Irani (too old - 36), Godleman (too young - 18), James Pipe and David Nash - neither of whom I've heard of. And that doesn't include the top tier league.

[DemonKing]

I feel obliged to defend the man I named myself after, but I'm feeling too lazy at the moment, so suffice it to say that the ICC has ruled his action legal (and Don Bradman said that Hair calling Murali for throwing was "the worst example of umpiring I've ever seen")

I was only making a "those who throw stones in glass houses" joke (or should that be chuck stones?)...but let's be realistic, the alteration of the chucking rules to suit Murli and others is purely a sop put in place by an ICC dominated and financially dependant on the Asian bloc.

My opinion is it's a shame that, barring a tragic accident or debilitating long-term injury, the World Record holder for most wickets in both forms of the game, most likely a record that may never be broken, will also have one of the most suspect actions of all time.

Sri Lanka have some legitimate grumbles about the officials in the WC finals IMO, but carrying on about half a squash ball in a glove is ridiculous compared to what they've been getting away with for ages.

Saying that, I appreciate that the players themselves are not the ones making a fuss and Jaywaydene's offer to come back and see out the meaningless 3 last overs in the dark was pure sportsmanship in the face of awful officialdom. Kudos to the man.

[IheartTesla]

but let's be realistic, the alteration of the chucking rules to suit Murli and others is purely a sop put in place by an ICC dominated and financially dependant on the Asian bloc.

Name me one bowler who was found not to have straightened his arm. Here is a cricinfo article to clarify the matter (might have been posted earlier):

According to Derek Pringle in the Daily Telegraph, Murali is no different from the vast majority of his fellow players. The current law states that there should be no straightening or partial straightening of the bowling arm during delivery, and in-depth research has revealed that even bowlers like Glenn McGrath and Shaun Pollock, usually considered examplars of the classical action, occasionally go over the prescribed tolerance limit, bending their arms by as much as 12 degrees.

Everyone chucks according to the classic definition. Its insulting to deem it as having happened because of the Asian 'bloc', its not as if the Indian cricket board is out to do any favors for the Sri Lankans. How often do Australians and New Zealanders do anything as a bloc?

Edit: The one bowler question was rhetorical Sarwan was the only one. Everyone else went over the proscribed limits at the time, which were different for pacers and spinners. hence the 15 degree rule for everyone.

[DJDonegal]

Yeah, I remember reading that article a while back and reducing my critical eye upon those I deemed "chuckers". Though the article states that those like McGrath and Pollock only occasionally drift out of tolerance, so my disdain towards repeated offenders remains - and that extends only to those declared to have an illegal action by the ICC.

[DemonKing]

Everyone chucks according to the classic definition. Its insulting to deem it as having happened because of the Asian 'bloc', its not as if the Indian cricket board is out to do any favors for the Sri Lankans. How often do Australians and New Zealanders do anything as a bloc?

Well theoretically the umpires are supposed to be the judge of whether a player has an illegal action or not (I say theoretically because most umpires in international games will probably be afraid to call it even if they see it these days). It's impossible to precisely judge a 10 degree or 15 degree angle with the naked eye, which means - theoretically - the umpire (and spectator) have to go with their gut feeling. It's not exact science but it's all we've got which is why a McGrath or Pollock who *occassionally* goes to a 12 degree angle obviously looks better than a Murali who is obviously hovering consistently around (or above) the 15 degree limit). You can strap a player up to all the hi-tech monitoring equipment you choose in laboratory conditions and get a dozen different opinions but when a player is out there in match conditions and doesn't even look close to being legal, you have to draw the line somewhere. Unfortunately any official brave enough to stand up and point this out has been ruthelessly put down.

You are living in dreamland if you seriously think that the ICC is not controlled by the Asian bloc (with support from Zimbabwe and the West Indies):

* Chuckers allowed to play on without proper remedial action.

* Drug cheats allowed to play on after being initially banned.

* Umpire dumped after sulky players refuse to accept their rulings and get on with the game resulting in a forfeit. Players get a slap on the wrist while umpire is out of a job for actually following the rulebook.

* Next WC to be hosted in Sub-continent again despite the fact it is long overdue to be held in Australia/NZ once more.

* India allowed to dictate when and where its team plays despite it being one of the worst performed teams in recent times (dumping Australia from series in Ireland, refusing to start their Australia tour till after XMAS etc).

* Zimbawe allowed to linger on in international cricket despite the appalling state of their team and their government.

Some interesting recent articles here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5001505,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5001505,00.html

[Vestrit]

so it might be another fringe player gets another chance such as Owais Shah, Vikram Solanki or Robert Key, either that or they'll give a debut to a young batsman.

Bring back The People's Batsman!!!!!

Ah, Robert Key - smash a double century in a day, take the bowlers' sledging and give it back twice as hard, and then go and demolish a Lords' lunch spread.

[Xray the Enforcer]

anybody got a link to help me understand this "classical" style of bowling vs. those damned cheats? (or care to describe it?) I'm having a hard time understanding what y'all are talking about. Is this basically that you can't entirely straighten your bowling arm (at the elbow), but have to keep it bent at 15 degrees or more?

[ithanos]

You ever been Ten Pin bowling Xray? That's under arm bowling where the Aussies learnt the arm swings from the shoulder and you apply a bit of wrist or finger whip to propel or add spin to the ball. The elbow is not intended to bend, therefore not adding any velocity to the action.

The bend in the elbow adds an extra pivot point in the action increasing the potential energy that can be applied to the ball, hence it becomes a throwing action. For a fast bowler it is added speed, for a spin bowler the added arm speed is cunningly translated into increased wrist spin for turning the ball.

I'm sure others will detail the ICC definitions of a 'bowl' vs a 'throw' [chuck] and the elbow flex allowances.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Ah, OK. so I had it backwards -- the arm is not supposed to bend at the elbow, but for whatever reason, they allow up to 15 degrees of bending (in one article I read, sports medicine experts say that this is preferable to a full straight-arm action, I think).