Pak pacers used to tamper with the ball: Abdul Qadir

[Choora]

This has completely changed the course of the topic.....there is much to suggest that these 'great' bowlers were cheats.

Ironically you don't consider Warne a cheat who served suspension for taking illegal drug!

 

[marc71178]

That is stupid, its like saying "taking banned drugs helped Aus win the World cup"

Why?

Warne was banned for it because he did wrong.

 

[luckyeddie]

How about this, whether he was racist or not he was a ***ist!!


Remember Bothom said that Pak team is like 11 women who keeps fighting all the time.Fair enough on Pak players who actually have a poor record but why bring women into it?

Agreed, but I've also heard the same person describing an Australian slip cordon as 'a gaggle of fishwives' because of all the chat.

Now that, to me, is an insult to the spouses of fishermen anywhere. Botham is an obvious piscuxorist and should be banned.

 

[Top_Cat]

Philosophical question: someone tell me why altering the condition of the ball is 'cheating' and why doing so constitutes an 'unfair advantage'.
http://forum.cricketweb.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=172522
And, I might add, if anyone throws any "rulez iz rulez" or "it's illegal because it's against the rules" stuff at me, you will automatically attract my scorn. Those arguments are NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

To help you aong, here are a couple of questions:

- Why is it 'unfair' for a bowler to use nothing but a fingernail perhaps to make the ball swing/seam more but it's quite acceptable to use spit/sweat?

- Why are bowler's attempts to alter the ball met with such scorn when bat company's attempts to give batsmen more power quite are okay? I mean, scratching up one side of the ball might give you more swing, it might bugger up what little swing you were getting; with modern bats vs older bats, you are guaranteed more power. Why was this allowed to happen?

My guess is, there ain't a single person who'll be able to come up with a truly objective reason why altering the ball's condition is 'unfair' and why any advantage gained is 'unfair'.

How about heavier/more powerful bats? How about bouncer-per-over rules? How about narrower wide/no-ball above shoulder height in ODI's rules? How about 'no more than two men behind square leg' rules? How about ultra-strict LBW rules? How about the 'batsman always gets the benefit of the doubt' unwritten rule? In the context of ball-tampering giving an 'unfair' advantage, why aren't these things considered an 'unfair' advantage to the batsmen?

Just poking the great Iris of life in the eye...........

 

[Linda]

Why?

Warne was banned for it because he did wrong.

Yes, but the act of Warnie taking the drug didn't help Australia win the World Cup.

 

[marc71178]

That was my point!

 

[luckyeddie]

Just poking the great Iris of life in the eye...........

And you are right to do so, Corey.

I have long advocated that bowlers be allowed to do what the heck they want to the ball - seam-picking, quarter-seam lifting, rupping it in Mike Atherton's pocket - but that's it. If it goes out of shape, goes soft, tough. You don't get another one for 80 overs (no, let's make that 100 overs) even if it's like a piece of rag.

What I wouldn't allow, though, is bottle-tops, lipsol (walks away quietly, whistling on that last one)

 

[yohanna]

Yes, but the act of Warnie taking the drug didn't help Australia win the World Cup.

True, likewise the act of ball tampering (one by Waqar and Akhter) didn't helped Pakistan win the world cup either!! That was my point.

 

[Swervy]

True, likewise the act of ball tampering (one by Waqar and Akhter) didn't helped Pakistan win the world cup either!! That was my point.

well that is up for debate

 

[yohanna]

well that is up for debate

That way everything is up for debate.

 

[Swervy]

Philosophical question: someone tell me why altering the condition of the ball is 'cheating' and why doing so constitutes an 'unfair advantage'.
http://forum.cricketweb.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=172522
And, I might add, if anyone throws any "rulez iz rulez" or "it's illegal because it's against the rules" stuff at me, you will automatically attract my scorn. Those arguments are NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

erm..well the arguement that its against the rules is perfectly valid.

As it stands you cannot alter the state of the ball artificially (other than with sweat or saliva or whatever), so it is wrong to do it.

I do personally feel that the rules should be relaxed and seam picking etc with the fingers should be allowed,...but as it stands, it isnt allowed to be done..so it shouldnt be done..and if it is,the [player caught doing it should get more than a few games ban.

 

[Swervy]

That way everything is up for debate.

indeed it is

 

[Linda]

That was my point!

Sorry, it sounded like you were questioning the 'stupidity' of the remark about drugs helping Australia win the world cup.

 

[Top_Cat]

erm..well the arguement that its against the rules is perfectly valid.

As it stands you cannot alter the state of the ball artificially (other than with sweat or saliva or whatever), so it is wrong to do it.

I do personally feel that the rules should be relaxed and seam picking etc with the fingers should be allowed,...but as it stands, it isnt allowed to be done..so it shouldnt be done..and if it is,the [player caught doing it should get more than a few games ban.

No kidding, you couldn't have missed my point by any more. We're talking missing the point on a galaxy-sized scale. Sheesh......

Do you always follow the laws on the basis that 'they're the law'? Do you possess any illegal software? Have you ever crossed the street illegally/sped in your car even for a few minutes? Just because someone says in law that you can't do something, doesn't mean it's justified and shouldn't be changed.

I'm not arguing against whether the rule should be applied; I'm asking whether the rules should even exist. I'm taking issue with the motivation for the rule and the logic behind it. I take issue with the notion that tampering with the ball's condition gives the bowler an 'unfair' advantage and I take issue with the rather lacklustre logic behind the justification for the enactment and application of said rules.

I'm asking the questions of everyone (again);

Does changing the condition of the ball give the bowler an 'unfair' advantage? If you say yes, PROVE IT. When someone actually defines what *is* an 'unfair advantage', then we can decide whether that applied to altering the condition of the ball. NO-ONE in the time I've been reading copiously on cricket/watching cricket/eating, breathing, sleeping, dreaming of cricket has been able to satisfy me that advantage gained form changing the condition of the ball constitutes an 'unfair' advantage.

I mean, the usual response is laughable:

Frustrated Me: "Why is ball-tampering bad?"

Clueless Person: "Because it is. Bowlers can swing the ball more. That's unfair."

FM: "An advantage it is, unfair it........well........why is it unfair?"

CP: "It gives bowlers the ability to swing the ball more than they ordinarily would."

FM: "More powerful bats give the batsmen the opportunity to hit the ball further than they ordinarily would; wide-restrictions and bouncer rules in ODI's give batsmen a better idea of where the ball is going to pitch than would ordinarily be the case; why are these advantages not considered unfair?"

CP: "It turns good bowlers unfairly/undeservedly into great ones."

FM: "SO DO MORE POWERFUL BATS!" (case in point: Justin Langer)

CP: "Errrr......ummmmm.......what, are you advocating cheating??"

And that's about the sophistication of responses to my questions I get. It's just a tad frustrating, particularly since my questions have NEVER been answered even minimally. The best people can do is to divert the issue with predictable Straw-Man Fallacies and Reductio in Adsurdum 'arguments'. Not only boring by destructive to debate and easily proven to be invalid arguments.

So AGAIN, someone PLEASE tell me why a bowler altering the condition of the ball gains an 'unfair' advantage.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, but the act of Warnie taking the drug didn't help Australia win the World Cup.

How can you say that ?? Who know how long has he been taking those drugs ? He was part of the World cup winning Aussie team in 1999 and I think MoM in the final as well, so there you go.

 

[marc71178]

He was also regularly tested as an International Sportsman.

 

[Swervy]

No kidding, you couldn't have missed my point by any more. We're talking missing the point on a galaxy-sized scale. Sheesh......

Do you always follow the laws on the basis that 'they're the law'? Do you possess any illegal software? Have you ever crossed the street illegally/sped in your car even for a few minutes? Just because someone says in law that you can't do something, doesn't mean it's justified and shouldn't be changed.

I'm not arguing against whether the rule should be applied; I'm asking whether the rules should even exist. I'm taking issue with the motivation for the rule and the logic behind it. I take issue with the notion that tampering with the ball's condition gives the bowler an 'unfair' advantage and I take issue with the rather lacklustre logic behind the justification for the enactment and application of said rules.

I'm asking the questions of everyone (again);

Does changing the condition of the ball give the bowler an 'unfair' advantage? If you say yes, PROVE IT. When someone actually defines what *is* an 'unfair advantage', then we can decide whether that applied to altering the condition of the ball. NO-ONE in the time I've been reading copiously on cricket/watching cricket/eating, breathing, sleeping, dreaming of cricket has been able to satisfy me that advantage gained form changing the condition of the ball constitutes an 'unfair' advantage.

I mean, the usual response is laughable:

Frustrated Me: "Why is ball-tampering bad?"

Clueless Person: "Because it is. Bowlers can swing the ball more. That's unfair."

FM: "An advantage it is, unfair it........well........why is it unfair?"

CP: "It gives bowlers the ability to swing the ball more than they ordinarily would."

FM: "More powerful bats give the batsmen the opportunity to hit the ball further than they ordinarily would; wide-restrictions and bouncer rules in ODI's give batsmen a better idea of where the ball is going to pitch than would ordinarily be the case; why are these advantages not considered unfair?"

CP: "It turns good bowlers unfairly/undeservedly into great ones."

FM: "SO DO MORE POWERFUL BATS!" (case in point: Justin Langer)

CP: "Errrr......ummmmm.......what, are you advocating cheating??"

And that's about the sophistication of responses to my questions I get. It's just a tad frustrating, particularly since my questions have NEVER been answered even minimally. The best people can do is to divert the issue with predictable Straw-Man Fallacies and Reductio in Adsurdum 'arguments'. Not only boring by destructive to debate and easily proven to be invalid arguments.

So AGAIN, someone PLEASE tell me why a bowler altering the condition of the ball gains an 'unfair' advantage.

woah, easy tiger...being a smart **** doesnt suit you.

Sorry if I did 'miss the point'

As I say, maybe the laws should be relaxed,although I doubt they will. Cricketing authorities have always tried to make the game a batters game. We already suffer from a number of tests not going the distance,and therefore the game is losing revenue..I doubt the authorities will encourage that to continue.

And where the hell do you get the idea that a heavy bats makes an average batsman into a good one.

Just as a point of interest,what would you replace the current rules with...would you allow bowlers to do what they want with it, or would you draw a line somewhere, like dont use bottle tops, or pen knives to fiddle with the ball????

And please, in replying, dont be so patronising.

 

[Sanz]

He was also regularly tested as an International Sportsman.

Was he tested before the World Cup(1999) ?

 

[wahindiawah]

Was he tested before the World Cup(1999) ?

No!

 

[marc71178]

And you know this how exactly?