[Walddk]

LAW 42.3c (FAIR AND UNFAIR PLAY):
"It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball".

How does ball tampering favour bowlers?

Bowlers shine one side of a new cricket ball while the opposite is left to deteriorate through natural wear and tear. This process helps bowlers swing the ball in the air.

In simple terms, the aerodynamics of bowling mean the shiny side travels faster through the air, while the rough side acts as a brake, pushing the ball in the direction of the rough side. But as the ball loses its early shine, it begins to swing less and it is not until it gets older and rougher that it begins to deviate again, a process known as reverse swing.

"As the ball becomes rougher, it will take on a different characteristic as it deteriorates", said former England fast bowling coach Troy Cooley, who helped England's bowlers use the phenomenon to great success during the 2005 Ashes series.

"So if you present the ball as an outswinger, the ball has deteriorated so much on the rough side that it takes on the characteristics of the shiny side. This means that a natural outswinger will become an inswinger and conversely, an inswinger an outswinger".

The laws of the game clearly state fielders can polish, clean or dry the ball, but nothing more. The batsmen, pitch and outfield all contribute to the natural wear and tear of the ball, which usually starts to reverse swing around the 40- to 50-over mark during a Test match.

However, the earlier the ball starts to reverse swing, the more problems it poses for the batsmen. Bowlers can facilitate the deterioration by manipulating the condition of the ball illegally.

The seam, which acts as the ball's rudder when it swings, can be picked with fingernails. The nails can also help to further scuff the rough side of the ball.

[jikl]

Quote

LAW 42.3c (FAIR AND UNFAIR PLAY):
"It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball".

This is one of the most silly rules ever contrived. It is legal to rub the ball to shine it; however, consider this, how many times have you seen a spinner rub his hand on the pitch and then thake the ball to have more grip? Is this not imparting a different condition upon the ball?

Let's go on another angle...

If I decided to soak a particular part of my white with oil or lacquer ot make it super easy to change the ball... we all know that is illegal. If I chose to put talcum powder on my had to facillitate the release of the ball from my hand that is legal.

Personally, I think if Pakistan wanted to really dig in, they would win in the courts as the law is unenforceable as it has too many contradictions.

Sean

PS: In some ways I am glad Darrell Hair is Australian. It means he can't umpire in our matches. It is a sad reflection that this thought came to me so quickly.

[zasanya]

the saint, on Aug 20 2006, 04:03 PM, said:

Irrespective of whether its true or not, why is it always Pakistan?

It isn't.Ask Muralitharan of Sri Lanka.Or ask Sunil gavaskar regarding a certain Umpire Whitehead of Austrailia.
And Why is it always Darrel Hair of Austrailia?

[the saint]

IMO, the laws of the game are the laws. The law may be an ass, and after this it will probably have to be reviewed to provide a balance (Pakistan do have a rightful grievance about being unable to defend themselves), but they did willingly refuse to play and in the opinion of the umpires they have a case to answer about ball tampering. Without doubt this whole matter could have been handled much better, but when the laws say a certain thing, you have to follow them.

It is also worth noting that there were TWO umpires involved, who both agreed with each other - people seem to be forgetting Billy Doctrove too. Now from a cricketing standpoint I think they are both atrocious in terms of poor judgments on decisions (Aleem Dar is the best I have seen recently - was superb in the Sri Lanka series) but they have made a decision that they agreed on so the teams should observe it.

Ironically, the one person I feel sorry for in all this is Inzy. Given the fractious nature of England-Pakistan cricket relations, his mild mannered approach has worked wonders, and the England fans really love the guy. As captain he is responsible for the conduct of his team, and I do hope for his sake that someone on his side wasn't doing anything behind his back. Cricket needs more Inzys.

[Walddk]

I agree with BBC pundit Jonathan Agnew when he says .....

"While I do have some sympathy for Pakistan, staging a sit-in on Sunday evening was not the right way to register their protest.

They clearly feel most aggrieved at having been found guilty of ball-tampering without being able to defend themselves. But a better, more sensible approach would surely have been to issue a strong denial at tea time, in which they also promised to appeal, and get on with the game.

Instead, what they tried to do was effectively blackmail the officials into overturning the umpires' decision.

This could have set a very dangerous precedent".

[mr1303]

One thing I am concerned about is that the rest of the series may not go ahead now. I'd be very sad about this (not least because I have tickets to the Twenty20 international on Monday).

Surely some sort of truce can be reached, for the good of the game.

[Dwingo]

From what I read in the news, there is no evidence that the ball has been doctored. That being so, giving a penalty of 5runs without having the courtesy to tell the captain why it was done, is not gentlemanly.

I remember Lever using vaseline durig his India tour long before the reverse swing technique was established. I wonder what he was trying to achieve then.

BCCI coming to the support of ICC on this issue is also surprising. BCCI can't see eye to eye with ICC and PCB and probably playing the cards right by choosing to support the ICC. Indian media is playing the racial card against Hair and this will be in the headlines for some more time to come.

[mr1303]

Newsflash:

Darrell Hair has offered to resign in exchange for 500,00 US dollars.

Anyone know why?!?

[the saint]

And we are still sh1t at one-day cricket.

[EricK]

the saint, on Sep 6 2006, 11:00 PM, said:

And we are still sh1t at one-day cricket.

Many of our best bowlers are injured and we insist on picking "bits and pieces" players rather than quality players. Why, for instance, is Panesar not playing? You need wicket-taking bowlers to win these days; you can't just try to rely on containment.

[jikl]

In a build-up to the Ashes from an Aussie front, the talk right now is about who will be batting at number 6, and surprisingly that is centred around how Glenn McGrath comes back.

If McGrath is bowling well, then Michael Clarke will be at number 6, if it isn't coming out too well then it will be Shane Watson.

Other than that the only other possible suprise in the Australian line up will be Stuart Clark as a bowler, an honest fast-medium out swing bowler with a decent seam position and a surprising off-cutter.

Sean

[the saint]

jikl, on Sep 7 2006, 11:06 PM, said:

In a build-up to the Ashes from an Aussie front, the talk right now is about who will be batting at number 6, and surprisingly that is centred around how Glenn McGrath comes back.

If McGrath is bowling well, then Michael Clarke will be at number 6, if it isn't coming out too well then it will be Shane Watson.

Other than that the only other possible suprise in the Australian line up will be Stuart Clark as a bowler, an honest fast-medium out swing bowler with a decent seam position and a surprising off-cutter.

Sean

Stuart Clark did well against the Saffers though.

For England, the key is Panesar. If he is bowling well, he can fill an end all day and allow us to rotate the other 3 main bowlers around him. Then we can take all our batsmen and play Flintoff at 7. A line up something like this:

Trescothick (Assuming he is well)
Strauss
Cook
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Flintoff
Read
Harmy
Hoggy
Monty

If the Aussies get after Panesar then an extra bowler is required to avoid overstressing the seamers and then the problem of England's tail rears its head again.

[jikl]

Oops, I should have given the team also (not that it has many surprises):

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Clarke/Watson
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Clark
McGrath

Not sure about Clark's batting, McGrath may get another run at number 10

Sean

Edit: As an extra thought, damn this team is getting on in years, too many are holding on for the world cup or next Ashes in England. We need to blood some younger players.

[the saint]

ENGLAND IN ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL WIN SHOCKER!!!!

About time too!

[ewj]

jikl, on Sep 7 2006, 07:05 PM, said:

Not sure about Clark's batting, McGrath may get another run at number 10

That'll cheer McGrath up...I've heard he fancies himself as a bit of a batsman! The Aussie team looks pretty fearsome to be honest!

[paulg]

the saint, on Sep 9 2006, 09:11 AM, said:

ENGLAND IN ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL WIN SHOCKER!!!!

About time too!

Shocker is the best description of Sajid's bowling when under pressure.

p

[the saint]

And we are currently in serious danger of winning another!

[mr1303]

And Sajid Mahmood took the man of the match award. That really is shocking.

[jikl]

I am not so sure that Freddie as captain is a good idea, he already has too much to do. Traditionally bowlers and allrounders are not the best choice as captains. They usually bowl themselves too little or too much.

Many say he is the next "Botham", and rejoice at his new posting. Perhaps it should be remembered that when Botham was captain, he played nowhere near to his ability. It will be interesting to see how he goes as captain.

Sean

[the saint]

I would have gone with Strauss. He's done a reasonable job this summer. Just seems to much for Flintoff to do everything.