-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Gilchrist a cheater?
- Thread starter Francis
- Start date
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
More of a sign of the politics controlling cricketing issues. Most of the 'cricket based' admins had no real issues with it. But the ones with politically background pushed the case to the ICC, as alot of fans back home wanted something done about it. So by getting it looked at by the ICC, increased their chances of re-election.I see this issue has now been officially raised by an SL official, though Murali has said there's nothign wrong with what Gilly did, and Duleep Mendis hardly supported its referral to the ICC either.
All in all, seems like a case of
Its should be noted that most fans back home, haven't been given the full story about what the squash ball was used for. Personally i didn't realise it was just to reduce the grip from the bottom hand to increase top hand control, basically just improving your balance with your hands. Most of the information they got was from similar articles to the ones about the drugs, basically slanted towards Gilchirst cheating on purpose.
I think people should remember before having a go at the Sri Lankan public for their re-action to the incident, is the fact that most only have access to information from government newspapers and tv stations. Which have been slanted towards Gilchirst cheating and even stupid comments about Hayden on drugs. If the only information you get is like that, its no wonder their re-action has been like this.
Last edited:
pasag
RTDAS
Top post.
The_Bunny
State Regular
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
I hate reading those essays, he does make some good points, but a lot of miss leading stuff and baised things in there. Really if you think thats bad its nothing compared to some of the other stuff they get fed over there, tip of the iceberg really.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I was under the impression that it was half a squash ball rather than the whole thing in his glove, yet the diagram and reasoning there is based on it being a whole ball. May be wrong though.
viktor
State Vice-Captain
The ICC has "responded" to the SLC claims.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070508/asp/sports/story_7748507.asp
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070508/asp/sports/story_7748507.asp
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
The ICC says: “The Law specifies only what external protective equipment is permitted for particular players. The only item for which any specification is given is wicketkeeper’s gloves.
“Helmets, external leg guards (batting pads), batting gloves and forearm gloves (if visible) are all listed as permitted for batsmen. None has any definition or prescription. Since there is no restriction in Law even on the external form of batting gloves, let alone the interior thereof, no Law has been breached.
“The umpires are responsible under Law 3.6 (c) for seeing that no player uses equipment other than that permitted. Currently permitted equipment is limited to external items. Consequently there is no failure by either the umpires or others in charge of the players if they do not extend their observation to non-external items.
“Most players, including batsmen, wear other items for protection, but they are not visible and so not classed as external. Wicketkeepers traditionally wear ‘inners’ inside their gloves. No objection is raised to their doing so.
“Why should this be considered unfair? How could it be any less fair than the widespread practice of having two grips on the bat handle — to which no objection, official or unofficial, has ever been raised?”
Exactly .
“Helmets, external leg guards (batting pads), batting gloves and forearm gloves (if visible) are all listed as permitted for batsmen. None has any definition or prescription. Since there is no restriction in Law even on the external form of batting gloves, let alone the interior thereof, no Law has been breached.
“The umpires are responsible under Law 3.6 (c) for seeing that no player uses equipment other than that permitted. Currently permitted equipment is limited to external items. Consequently there is no failure by either the umpires or others in charge of the players if they do not extend their observation to non-external items.
“Most players, including batsmen, wear other items for protection, but they are not visible and so not classed as external. Wicketkeepers traditionally wear ‘inners’ inside their gloves. No objection is raised to their doing so.
“Why should this be considered unfair? How could it be any less fair than the widespread practice of having two grips on the bat handle — to which no objection, official or unofficial, has ever been raised?”
Exactly .
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
The baised Sri Lanka reporters response in 1..2..3... "The ICC are baised towards Australian and let them get away with anything.....If it was a Sri Lanka the squash ball would have been banned"
And so on and so forth.
Interesting to see it been address so quickly, rather then the long process they had with Pointing's bats.
And so on and so forth.
Interesting to see it been address so quickly, rather then the long process they had with Pointing's bats.
Last edited:
pup11
International Coach
This is just crazy stuff from the lankan cricket administrators and their media, they are saying what Gilly did was unethical.
This is so ****ing dire, i am really looking forward to hear what Gilly has to say on all this.
This is soon turning out to be the biggest controversy in cricket since the "Oval ball tampering saga".
This whole episode sadly has taken the gloss of Gilly's brilliant knock in the final.
This is so ****ing dire, i am really looking forward to hear what Gilly has to say on all this.
This is soon turning out to be the biggest controversy in cricket since the "Oval ball tampering saga".
This whole episode sadly has taken the gloss of Gilly's brilliant knock in the final.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
You think that has something to do with Ponting being an Australian ?
legglancer12
School Boy/Girl Captain
The Best Point of the Article IMO.
Finally just see the Australian ingenuity --the blessings of 33 million deities which the entire country sought could not bring Sri Lanka victory, but, one little squash ball hidden by an over zealous cricketer inside his batting glove was able to give Australia that much sought after cricket’s biggest gift with consummate ease.
P.S. According to a high ranking SLC official its hierarchy had met on the issue but, had arrived at the notion that though it does not permit a foreign object inside the batting glove, it also does not prevent anyone from having it. He also does not want the Aussies to feel that we are cry babies.
Finally just see the Australian ingenuity --the blessings of 33 million deities which the entire country sought could not bring Sri Lanka victory, but, one little squash ball hidden by an over zealous cricketer inside his batting glove was able to give Australia that much sought after cricket’s biggest gift with consummate ease.
P.S. According to a high ranking SLC official its hierarchy had met on the issue but, had arrived at the notion that though it does not permit a foreign object inside the batting glove, it also does not prevent anyone from having it. He also does not want the Aussies to feel that we are cry babies.
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
Not sure what your getting at there?
Probably had more to do with that fact that Ponting wasn't the only players using those bats. Every Kookabura contracted players was using the bats, its was just that Ponting was the face of the advertisement and was the most successful out of all the batsmen. Whereas in Gilchirst case he was the only one, so there might have not been the need for as big research into the situation.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Just a query
It could also be that the issue of the squash ball was much easier to deal with and it was clear to all but the 'unseeing' as to what was right and what wasnt.
The Ponting bat issue was not that clear and a clarification on the laws was necessarily.
deeps
International 12th Man
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Well. Here is my take on this.
We in the sub-continent have been getting a reputation of being bad losers. Some of it justified some not. We are not alone in it even if we are.
Then there are some people like Mahela who come out and say just the right things. These need to be endorsed and picked up as examples and reinforced. Not just in our international sides and their leaders but in our people and our youngsters at large.
When we start a debate like this and so many of us join in to support the negativity, it has an impact of undoing what Mahela did. No. I wasnt refering to the board official but all the endorsements this line of thinking gets.
ICC (MCC by proxy) may have done us a favour by nipping this in the bud. We need to take the hint and pipe down.
Its not the squash ball that bothers me but this tendency to start screaming 'cheater' at the slightest pretext and more often when we lose. We need to change this.
I reiterate, we are not alone in this, but we have to worry about ourselves.
Last edited: