Should the Ball Tampering Law be Scrapped ?

[James]

Sanz, I'm pretty sure that Mods can't alter a poll after it's been established. Well, I don't know how to anyways. Sorry mate.

You can Jack, go to 'Thread Tools'.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hmm, when I go into "Edit Thread" there's nothing there for me to change about the Poll options.

On that note, when will I get access to the moderator's forum/queue thing?

/Off Topic.

 

[Top_Cat]

I've stated this here before but I'm of the opinion that bowlers should be able to do with the ball what they wish as long as no artificial means and/or substances are used. I don't think scratching one side of the ball or picking the seam count as 'unfair' advantages because to be able to do that and make the ball do tricks after 20 overs, (make a ball move by scratching it or spitting on it, etc.) then that's a skill, not cheating in my book. On the other side, if you buggerise around with the ball and it stops swinging because of what you're doing then you live with the consequences. It's when mints, bottle-tops and the like are used that it becomes an unfair advantage.

I just don't see why it should be mandated that after 20 overs, batsmen should be able to bat without worrying about whether the ball is swinging and it become 'easy' to bat based solely on the fact that he ball is old. If a ball is old but you're able to still do something with it (as I said, without artificial means), then you should be able to.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

The law needs to be kept as it is. Damaging the ball on purpose for your teams benefit is cheating in my book. Catching offenders are the hardest part, but they have been doing a good job until recently.

 

[Sanz]

Done

Thanks James and Jack for trying.

 

[Sanz]

I've stated this here before but I'm of the opinion that bowlers should be able to do with the ball what they wish as long as no artificial means and/or substances are used. I don't think scratching one side of the ball or picking the seam count as 'unfair' advantages because to be able to do that and make the ball do tricks after 20 overs, (make a ball move by scratching it or spitting on it, etc.) then that's a skill, not cheating in my book. On the other side, if you buggerise around with the ball and it stops swinging because of what you're doing then you live with the consequences. It's when mints, bottle-tops and the like are used that it becomes an unfair advantage.

I just don't see why it should be mandated that after 20 overs, batsmen should be able to bat without worrying about whether the ball is swinging and it become 'easy' to bat based solely on the fact that he ball is old. If a ball is old but you're able to still do something with it (as I said, without artificial means), then you should be able to.

Can we break the ball into half ?

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Its a non question, Tampering with the ball is blatent cheating. By scuffing it and altering its condition, you give yourself an unfair advantage.

 

[SJS]

Its a non question, Tampering with the ball is blatent cheating. By scuffing it and altering its condition, you give yourself an unfair advantage.

Come on.

It isnt a bigger (or more unfair) advantage than you get by having the best legspinner in the world, the best new ball bowler in the world, best opener in the world, best wicket keeper in the world etc etc

 

[silentstriker]

UNFAIR ADVANTAGE?

In an era of pitches so flat you could land airplanes on them, and 500+ scores being routine, you are worried about BOWLERS GETTING AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE?


Come on...we need to reign the batsman back in.

 

[SJS]

UNFAIR ADVANTAGE?

In an era of pitches so flat you could land airplanes on them, and 500+ scores being routine, you are worried about BOWLERS GETTING AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE?


Come on...we need to reign the batsman back in.

Hear hear.

Bowlers could do with as much unfair advantage as they can manage without being caught

 

[open365]

Does anyone know at what date the ball tampering law as it is now was introduced?

I could understand it in the olden days when batsman had less of an advantage than they do now.

I would like to see that the law as your allowed to change the condition of the ball as long as you don't use any artificial means. I would put 'no artificial means' in because then you won't have cricket companies producing products that will drasticaly alter the state of the ball.

Personaly, as a cricketer, i find altering the ball to my advantage immpossible anyway. I obviously don't know how it is in the professional game, but nothing i do to a ball works. Once i even got a semi old ball and spent quarter of an hour scraping one side of the ball of concrete and shining the other. I still didn't get much swing though.

 

[James]

Hmm, when I go into "Edit Thread" there's nothing there for me to change about the Poll options.

On that note, when will I get access to the moderator's forum/queue thing?

/Off Topic.

That's strange, must be some vBulletin permission that doesn't allow moderators to change polls

There's nothing in the moderator forum/queue, we don't use it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I've stated this here before but I'm of the opinion that bowlers should be able to do with the ball what they wish as long as no artificial means and/or substances are used. I don't think scratching one side of the ball or picking the seam count as 'unfair' advantages because to be able to do that and make the ball do tricks after 20 overs, (make a ball move by scratching it or spitting on it, etc.) then that's a skill, not cheating in my book. On the other side, if you buggerise around with the ball and it stops swinging because of what you're doing then you live with the consequences. It's when mints, bottle-tops and the like are used that it becomes an unfair advantage.

I just don't see why it should be mandated that after 20 overs, batsmen should be able to bat without worrying about whether the ball is swinging and it become 'easy' to bat based solely on the fact that he ball is old. If a ball is old but you're able to still do something with it (as I said, without artificial means), then you should be able to.

Still, I'd put in the proviso that the seam can't be split, where you get holes in the seam etc.

If that occurs, the ball should be replaced.

 

[deeps]

I believe that Ball tampering should be allowed, but to certain extents.

1) A player can use anything naturally on his body. Nails, Teeth, hair (not the darryl variety) etc.

2) Ball tampering is only allowed after the 25th over. Before this, the rules are to remain as they are now.

3) Blades, bottletops, rubbing on the ground, using sand is NOT allowed.

4) Mints/gum/sunscreen is allowed. I'd like to make it not allowed, but unfortunately, it would be too hard to police, and if you can't police it, you may as well make it allowed, or it will lead to the rule being unclear and more importantly, inconsistent.


The batsman's era has gone on far too long. Gone are the days of having superb match winning bowlers. Now you must have a match saving bowler. Someone who can bowl and bowl until the batsman gets himself out. There is no assistance from the pitches. Bats are getting lighter and more powerful, the rules are weighted in favour of batsman, who always get the benefit of the doubt etc.

I'm sick of seeing players who aren't really that good, being able to dominate the bowling. Hayden opened for Australia in the early nineties, and was a failure. Nothing special, and sent back to state level. If he was to face the level of bowling he did then, on the same sort of pitches as he did then, he would struggle.

Even most of the aussie batsman, struggle so much against good bowling, because it's so rare. If someone like Steve Waugh had played in the last ashes series, he would have made runs, because he's faced this quality bowling before. Reverse swing, good pace and bounce etc.

He played in the era of Ambrose,Walsh, Younis, Akram etc.

Suddenly the Australian line up face some good bowling, and they had no clue.

Seriously, throw Flintoff back into the early 90's, and he'd be nothing but a middle of the road bowler. (except of course in the England team). He's a strike bowler her.e


The standard of bowling has dropped drastically, the pitches are one factor. Give the bowlers some more advantage, and some more bowlers may start coming through the ranks.

Everyone wants to see runs runs and more runs. I want to see a contest.

 

[vic_orthdox]

4) Mints/gum/sunscreen is allowed. I'd like to make it not allowed, but unfortunately, it would be too hard to police, and if you can't police it, you may as well make it allowed, or it will lead to the rule being unclear and more importantly, inconsistent.

Worse then razorblades.

 

[adharcric]

I've stated this here before but I'm of the opinion that bowlers should be able to do with the ball what they wish as long as no artificial means and/or substances are used. I don't think scratching one side of the ball or picking the seam count as 'unfair' advantages because to be able to do that and make the ball do tricks after 20 overs, (make a ball move by scratching it or spitting on it, etc.) then that's a skill, not cheating in my book. On the other side, if you buggerise around with the ball and it stops swinging because of what you're doing then you live with the consequences. It's when mints, bottle-tops and the like are used that it becomes an unfair advantage.

I just don't see why it should be mandated that after 20 overs, batsmen should be able to bat without worrying about whether the ball is swinging and it become 'easy' to bat based solely on the fact that he ball is old. If a ball is old but you're able to still do something with it (as I said, without artificial means), then you should be able to.

I completely agree. Allowing players to work on the ball by natural means makes a much better contest between bat and ball. Personally I do a lot of work on the ball (shining, rubbing, the rare scratching I've only done once in moist conditions when the ball was going crazy) and it helps make the game exciting. The artificial stuff should be banned and things like altering the seam seem weird to me as well, perhaps because I don't understand it. Shining, scratching, rubbing, pure spit-spreading seem fine to me. If the batsmen can get ultra-sweet spots made in their bats and revolutionary designs that enhance the impact and strength, why can't the bowlers get something changed with their balls as well. Also, I agree with slow_love's view on simply changing the ball when suspicion arises without evidence.

 

[cricketboy29]

Does anyone know at what date the ball tampering law as it is now was introduced?

I could understand it in the olden days when batsman had less of an advantage than they do now.

I would like to see that the law as your allowed to change the condition of the ball as long as you don't use any artificial means. I would put 'no artificial means' in because then you won't have cricket companies producing products that will drasticaly alter the state of the ball.

Personaly, as a cricketer, i find altering the ball to my advantage immpossible anyway. I obviously don't know how it is in the professional game, but nothing i do to a ball works. Once i even got a semi old ball and spent quarter of an hour scraping one side of the ball of concrete and shining the other. I still didn't get much swing though.

It's really hard to swing that damn ball....When me and my mates were playing, we had to shine it continuosly for atleast 15 overs, I.e since we were playing with an old ball, and then it started to swing a bit. Not much though, An Inch or two Inches maybe.

 

[SJS]

.... Hayden opened for Australia in the early nineties, and was a failure. Nothing special, and sent back to state level. If he was to face the level of bowling he did then, on the same sort of pitches as he did then, he would struggle.

Even most of the aussie batsman, struggle so much against good bowling, because it's so rare.

He played in the era of Ambrose,Walsh, Younis, Akram etc.

Suddenly the Australian line up face some good bowling, and they had no clue.

Seriously, throw Flintoff back into the early 90's, and he'd be nothing but a middle of the road bowler. (except of course in the England team). He's a strike bowler her.e


The standard of bowling has dropped drastically,

So good to read someone agrring that modern batsmen are not the giants there batting averages make them out to be.

 

[IndianByHeart]

Its a non question, Tampering with the ball is blatent cheating. By scuffing it and altering its condition, you give yourself an unfair advantage.

Lately pacers have been having miserable time against batsmen on placcid pitches, not just in subcontinent but throughout the world, if anyone has had the unfair advantage then it were the batsmen and not the bowlers.

 

[deeps]

Lately pacers have been having miserable time against batsmen on placcid pitches, not just in subcontinent but throughout the world, if anyone has had the unfair advantage then it were the batsmen and not the bowlers.

exactly, i'm sick of these ridicilously large scores, and double and triple centuries being scored every second test. double centuries used to be special, triples extremely rare.

But in the last 5-8 years, there's probably been more doubles and triples scored than any other period of even 20 years of test cricket.

Maybe thats an exaggeration, but I don't think it'd be too far off the mark.