*Official* England in South Africa

[Sir Alex]

 

[Manee]

Loving how the moral authority of calmness, that is England, suddenly lose it when something does not go their way.

 

[kingkallis]

Loving how the moral authority of calmness, that is England, suddenly lose it when something does not go their way.

+1

 

[zaremba]

Loving how the moral authority of calmness, that is England, suddenly lose it when something does not go their way.

I don't see England "losing it" tbh. Any team would have lodged a complaint when an incident as pathetic as this occurs, and one which had such significant consequences. And the reactions on CW have been pretty restrained.

Anyhow it's good to see that no-one from England has yet stooped so low as to fling allegations of bias, prejudice or racism around.

 

[aussie]

Wtf, might as well give me credit for Australia's collapse if you're going to give Harmison credit.

Maybe i didn't make msyelf too clear or was poor wording be me. I was never suggesting Harmison should be given credit for AUS collapse. I said his spell to Langer (a well set batsman ATT) where he got him out first started the collapse since up to that point Hayden & Langer had whethered the early storm & where in total control.

Harmo was certainly bowling better than both Flintoff & Hoggard up to that point of AUS 1st innings & has i said bowled better than his figures suggested.

Australia collapsed in the face of bad light and some superb bowling from Flintoff and Hoggard.

Yes & the conditions got extremely overcast. IIRC when Flintoff got Ponting @ 260+ for 2, FLintoff/Hoggard bowled unchanged until AUS where bowled out. Harmo wasn't given the ball..

 

[GIMH]

Loving how the moral authority of calmness, that is England, suddenly lose it when something does not go their way.

Quite an uncharacteristic post this Manee. When can you remember a similar incident to this for this to be hypocritical (which is the overtone I am taking from your post)?

I don't see England "losing it" tbh. Any team would have lodged a complaint when an incident as pathetic as this occurs, and one which had such significant consequences. And the reactions on CW have been pretty restrained.

Anyhow it's good to see that no-one from England has yet stooped so low as to fling allegations of bias, prejudice or racism around.

Have you got me on ignore z?

 

[zaremba]

I'm wondering when GIMH is going to post in response to Manee.

 

[grecian]

Quite an uncharacteristic post this Manee. When can you remember a similar incident to this for this to be hypocritical (which is the overtone I am taking from your post)?

I was a tad confused too, clearly a bit too clever for me

 

[Manee]

I don't see England "losing it" tbh. Any team would have lodged a complaint when an incident as pathetic as this occurs, and one which had such significant consequences. And the reactions on CW have been pretty restrained.

Anyhow it's good to see that no-one from England has yet stooped so low as to fling allegations of bias, prejudice or racism around.

Quite an uncharacteristic post this Manee. When can you remember a similar incident to this for this to be hypocritical (which is the overtone I am taking from your post)?

Ignore me, long week. Was just thinking how the English response was one that the ball tampering allegations were blown out of proportion, that the Pakistani walk-off at the Oval was outlandish and the Indian reaction to Sydney-gate (in regards to Bucknor) was a disgrace to one of the respected umpires. However, was just an off the cuff remark.

I've never supported England (since I was very young) and was trying to get to the bottom of this with my friend. We got on to the topic of the players and how they are, by-and-large, likely to be privately educated (doesn't have anything to do with my dislike for the England team, which is irrational, may I point out, but we got on to the topic) and we were going through the players and we got to Collywood, at which time he remarked that Collingwood didn't go to private school but rather the "school of hard knocks" - made me chuckle in what has been a long and tiring week.

 

[Furball]

Is it just me that doesn't gaf about ball tampering?

I'd say razor blades and bottle tops aren't on, but if players want to pick at the surface of the ball or the seam with their nails, or use dirt from the pitch to scuff up the ball to get it to swing, then let them. You're allowed to load one side of the ball with saliva and shine it, I don't see how scuffing the other side of the ball with your nails is any different.

 

[Manee]

Is it just me that doesn't gaf about ball tampering?

I'd say razor blades and bottle tops aren't on, but if players want to pick at the surface of the ball or the seam with their nails, or use dirt from the pitch to scuff up the ball to get it to swing, then let them. You're allowed to load one side of the ball with saliva and shine it, I don't see how scuffing the other side of the ball with your nails is any different.

It should be allowed, I agree, but it isn't - there is a key distinction to be made, here.

 

[fredfertang]

Is it just me that doesn't gaf about ball tampering?

Not just you - every other pace bowler as well

 

[Furball]

Not just you - every other pace bowler as well

I'm not even a bowler.

Maybe someone who knows more about cricket than me can explain it. I just don't understand what the difference is between deliberately roughening up one side of the ball and deliberately shining one side of the ball, and why the latter is perfectly ok yet the former would see me hauled up on charges of ball tampering.

 

[Stapel]

We can properly discuss ball-tampering, T20-vs-Tests, Pakistani-self-destrucion, Australianism, Ian Bell's batting, Dale Willem Steyn's bowling, or any other cricket issue in anyway we want and with dozen of opinions.

And we can discuss how a referral sysem could and should work.

But when we can clearly see, even clear for SA-fans, that a batsman should be given out, but is not given out, that something is just very very wrong.

 

[Manee]

I'm not even a bowler.

Maybe someone who knows more about cricket than me can explain it. I just don't understand what the difference is between deliberately roughening up one side of the ball and deliberately shining one side of the ball, and why the latter is perfectly ok yet the former would see me hauled up on charges of ball tampering.

It is the reductio-ad-absurdum, to which bowlers are rubbing the ball on their spikes, sharpening their nails to roughen the ball, rubbing it on the ground, ****ting on the ball, etc and we see a quite sorry state of affairs. I am in favour of increased leniancy for ball tampering, but I do believe that to be the main argument against it.

 

[Furball]

It is the reductio-ad-absurdum, to which bowlers are rubbing the ball on their spikes, sharpening their nails to roughen the ball, rubbing it on the ground, ****ting on the ball, etc and we see a quite sorry state of affairs. I am in favour of increased leniancy for ball tampering, but I do believe that to be the main argument against it.

According to Wasim, the key to getting a ball to reverse is to load one side of the ball and keep it shiny, and to roughen the other side up. (I think, watching the Sky Sports feature during the 1st day of the Aus-Pak Test that's what it seemed to basically boil down to.)

To me, either action is altering the state of the ball.

Let's say I'm an England middle order bat in charge of maintaining the ball during an innings. I just cannot fathom what the difference is between me spitting on the ball and shining it against my trousers, and me scratching the ball with my fingernails or lifting the seam with my fingernails is.

If I get the ball, spit on it and shine it, fine, no problem. If I pick at the seam with my fingers or scrape the leather, I'd expect to be hauled up infront of the ICC and be fined or banned for ball tampering. It just seems completely and utterly ludicrous that there's a distinction there.

 

[grecian]

Ignore me, long week. Was just thinking how the English response was one that the ball tampering allegations were blown out of proportion, that the Pakistani walk-off at the Oval was outlandish and the Indian reaction to Sydney-gate (in regards to Bucknor) was a disgrace to one of the respected umpires.

and how has the reaction (on these forums or elsewhere), been remotely analogous of the Armageddon that some of those incidents caused, and that are still reverberating?

Can't really ignore you if you put a specious argument up to explain a fairly erroneous statement.

 

[zaremba]

According to Wasim, the key to getting a ball to reverse is to load one side of the ball and keep it shiny, and to roughen the other side up. (I think, watching the Sky Sports feature during the 1st day of the Aus-Pak Test that's what it seemed to basically boil down to.)

To me, either action is altering the state of the ball.

Let's say I'm an England middle order bat in charge of maintaining the ball during an innings. I just cannot fathom what the difference is between me spitting on the ball and shining it against my trousers, and me scratching the ball with my fingernails or lifting the seam with my fingernails is.

If I get the ball, spit on it and shine it, fine, no problem. If I pick at the seam with my fingers or scrape the leather, I'd expect to be hauled up infront of the ICC and be fined or banned for ball tampering. It just seems completely and utterly ludicrous that there's a distinction there.

I can completely see your point, and on a literal reading of the law I don't think that shining the ball is legal - because by doing that you are altering the condition of the ball.

Hazarding a guess, the difference may be along the lines that when you're shining it you're basically preserving and maintaining it, whereas when you're gouging etc you're damaging it. But I realise this isn't a sustainable distinction - apart from anything else, picking the seam is closer to preserving the state of the ball than damaging it.

 

[superkingdave]

I'm just surprised we haven't the latest installment of drivel spouted from a certain ex captain yet.

 

[GIMH]

Did anyone see Smith's interview?

Apparently he thought the sound when he nicked the ball was his bottom hand on his bat handle

FTR I completely agree with Flower - no blame should be apportioned to Smith for not walking though in this CC era of double standards I'd love to see how everyone responded had it been Stuart Broad stood there shaking his head after clearly edging the ball to the keeper