Ball gate scandal

[Ali TT]

For what reason are the quality if balls so **** of late? I mean the kookaburra is questionable at the best of times but it does seem that for a couple of years they and the dukes have both had a lot of issues? Any theories?

Did we not realise that saliva was actually essential in prolonging the life of a cricket ball?

 

[Owzat]

Do the Aussies have a genuine reason to complain about the ball change during there 2nd innings 2 days ago?

if the ball isn't doing anything teams will look to change it, it isn't something new just seems like some are phishing to make a scandal out of nothing to balance up CareyCad

bottom line is the rules are there to say the umpires stick it through their ring and if it doesn't fit the fielding side are entitled to change the ball for one of similar age and wear/condition. or is this just another fundamental basic of the game the aussies don't understand, like what constitutes a catch....

 

[Owzat]

Nah. Something was amiss, but we should just deal with it and move on. Umpires decision is final anyway so there's no use moaning.

Shouldn't let it detract from what was some excellent pom bowling, or the Broad fairytale end to his exceptional career. If you're good enough you'll overcome all these controversies and find a way. We weren't quite up to it but gave it a good crack. That's how it goes.

it can't detract, the fielding side are within their rights to ask to change the ball and if there is something wrong with it, doesn't fit through the umpire ring measuring gizmo then they change it, simple as

what next? appealing too frequently? might be something in the use of sub fielders which is worth looking into, always has been a bit of contention there, but this is just a nothing and would be sour grapes if the aussies maintain this line of whinging (given, as indicated, it's fully legit, nothing wrong with the ball and they can't change it)

 

[Anthony Clayden]

The rules put the question of the fitness of the ball with the umpries. At what point does the incessant approaches to change the ball (by both sides, although my memory is England seemed to do it more often) is badgering them.
If people think that Carey's stumping will flow on to lower grades, causing incessant attempts (although they have to hit the stumnps first). that was one wicket.
A ball change appears a much bigger pay off, so i can constant attempts to get the ball changed.

I get things happen in a game, it is now in the past, but I would just like to know if there was a screw up and how they will not do it again.

 

[Victor Ian]

`

I get things happen in a game, it is now in the past, but I would just like to know if there was a screw up and how they will not do it again.

It wont happen again because it happened, so now they will be more careful. If it was a consequence of balls being different a few years ago, I think this is funny, because, for all their best efforts to make sure boxes contain balls of similar age, this is one of those super easy things to overlook and only become an issue once it happened. Who would have realised up front that they had better start collecting new boxes of balls because they now had different characteristic?.

 

[Spofforth]

it can't detract, the fielding side are within their rights to ask to change the ball and if there is something wrong with it, doesn't fit through the umpire ring measuring gizmo then they change it, simple as

Oh sorry, I didn't watch that series, who was that between? I was too busy watching the Ashes where no Aussie players or staff claimed that a damaged ball can't or shouldn't be changed with one that is similar (but undamaged). Was there was an imaginary Ashes taking place at the same time?

Quite an impressive amount of straw you've collected there though. If you bail that up, your stock aren't going hungry through winter! Not sure what is more impressive, the irrelevance or the misplaced confidence with which it was delivered.

what next? appealing too frequently? might be something in the use of sub fielders which is worth looking into, always has been a bit of contention there, but this is just a nothing and would be sour grapes if the aussies maintain this line of whinging (given, as indicated, it's fully legit, nothing wrong with the ball and they can't change it)

Yeah, sure.

If I cared enough I might ask you wtf you're on about? (but I don't and that was rhetorical, no need to answer).

 

[Ashes81]

I think there are 2 key questions.

Firstly was the ball changed to one which was too new - I think the answer is clearly yes.

Secondly, was this merely a mistake or was there something more at play. Obviously we don't know that but common sense would dictate the former. For it to be the latter, then quite a few people would need to be involved which seems unlikely.

 

[Son Of Coco]

bottom line is the rules are there to say the umpires stick it through their ring and if it doesn't fit the fielding side are entitled to change the ball for one of similar age and wear/condition. or is this just another fundamental basic of the game the aussies don't understand, like what constitutes a catch....

...or perhaps what constitutes a 'pitch'.

The umpires well and truly stuck it in their ring this time. It was pretty bizarre, but it's done. You have to assume that there isn't a level of incompetence that allows you to choose a ball that is so different, so perhaps it was something else, although we all watched these umpires this series, so it's entirely possible it was just them.

 

[Daemon]

I’m going to investigate myself, because it affects me: Dukes’ owner on ball change controversy at Ashes

Former Australian skipper Ricky Ponting, also a commentator for the series, called for an investigation because he believed it helped the England bowlers.

indianexpress.com

As the Ashes ball change controversy rumbles on days after the series ended, Dilip Jajodia, the owner of the Dukes’ ball will launch an internal investigation, as per News Corp.

“I’m going to investigate myself, because it affects me … my name is at stake so it’s important they don’t misallege something wrong with the ball,” he was quoted as saying.


Every ball we produce for the specific season has got a date stamp on it. It would have 2023 marked on it. We supply balls to the ground. These balls are not controlled by the ECB or the ICC, it’s controlled by the ground authority. So on this particular occasion (at The Oval) the balls would be done by Surrey.

“Surrey get the supply of balls from us before the season starts and then they start knocking them in, getting them into wear and tear if you like and in my view, they’re probably not doing it that accurately,” he added.

 

[Spark]

if the ball isn't doing anything teams will look to change it, it isn't something new just seems like some are phishing to make a scandal out of nothing to balance up CareyCad

bottom line is the rules are there to say the umpires stick it through their ring and if it doesn't fit the fielding side are entitled to change the ball for one of similar age and wear/condition. or is this just another fundamental basic of the game the aussies don't understand, like what constitutes a catch....

it can't detract, the fielding side are within their rights to ask to change the ball and if there is something wrong with it, doesn't fit through the umpire ring measuring gizmo then they change it, simple as

what next? appealing too frequently? might be something in the use of sub fielders which is worth looking into, always has been a bit of contention there, but this is just a nothing and would be sour grapes if the aussies maintain this line of whinging (given, as indicated, it's fully legit, nothing wrong with the ball and they can't change it)

It's quietly impressive that you can write a pair of posts which are at once so sanctimonious and yet so oblivious to the actual issue in question.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's quietly impressive that you can write a pair of posts which are at once so sanctimonious and yet so oblivious to the actual issue in question.

With Owzat, it's not about the success (or otherwise) of the posts. It's about the entertainment he is providing and the fact that he is changing the way posting is done to bring young posters into the forum.

 

[ashley bach]

With Owzat, it's not about the success (or otherwise) of the posts. It's about the entertainment he is providing and the fact that he is changing the way posting is done to bring young posters into the forum.

Owzat?

 

[sledger]

Oh sorry, I didn't watch that series, who was that between? I was too busy watching the Ashes where no Aussie players or staff claimed that a damaged ball can't or shouldn't be changed with one that is similar (but undamaged). Was there was an imaginary Ashes taking place at the same time?

Quite an impressive amount of straw you've collected there though. If you bail that up, your stock aren't going hungry through winter! Not sure what is more impressive, the irrelevance or the misplaced confidence with which it was delivered.





Yeah, sure.

If I cared enough I might ask you wtf you're on about? (but I don't and that was rhetorical, no need to answer).

Cute attempt at a joke, but animals don't eat straw in any event. It's used as bedding.

 

[Daemon]

Cute attempt at a joke, but animals don't eat straw in any event. It's used as bedding.

Also isnt it bale not bail. Bit of a fail from spofforth.

 

[sledger]

Also isnt it bale not bail. Bit of a fail from spofforth.

Yes very true.

 

[Charger Salmons]

Also isnt it bale not bail. Bit of a fail from spofforth.

It is.
But your isn't should also have an apostrophe so stones and glass houses and all that ...