Re: Cricket
 

I think he had some grit in his eyes.

Re: Cricket
 

Would he still be upset and remourseful had he NOT been caught?

I think not. He is therefore sorry and appologetic ONLY because he was caught and for NO other reason.

I doubt that this was the first occasion that this 'technique' has been used and were he to be truly penitent then he'd admit to all those other times he got away with it, but he won't because it's damage limitation time. The odd tear, well the cynic might wonder whether these are for his shame, for the dollars lost or the hard stare from his wife who's wondering what the coffee mornings have to offer from now on.

Re: Cricket
 

I can't help but contrast the reaction on the ball tampering with the tolerance of blatant diving in football. :(

Re: Cricket
 

I think that is a tad unfair, sure he’ll lose financially but it seems to me that he’s starting to understand and be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the reaction. One may ask why the reaction has been so strong?

IMO

Public: Firstly, Australian culture places a lot of importance on sport (you may ask why but that’s another debate) and secondly, there is a reverence of the Australian cricket team. It’s been the one vehicle that has produced continued success and subsequently, has legitimized and glorified Australian identity. If you accept this, then it’s easy to understand the fetisiszation of the concept of the “Baggy Green.” Thus any attack or threat to the integrity and thus importance of such a symbol is going to be felt personally.

Cricket Australia: This is about resources, about money. Plain and simple. It’s about placating sponsors who are worried about the public reaction. One only has to look at the ICC’s reaction and subsequent punishment of the players to see that Cricket Australia is going way over the top with their punishment. My guess, is that it’s pretty easy to sacrifice a couple of replaceable players in order to preserve the financial worth of CA as an institution.

Australian Government: Given the public reaction, it’s an easy issue to take up. It makes the govt. look like they’re taking public concerns seriously, debates about values and principles have very little downside and are probably a good distraction from other thornier and costly issues. Plus, it always plays well with the public when famous professional sports figures, who are perceived to be “overpaid” and pampered are brought down a bit.

Re: Cricket
 

Nice summary. I find the reaction of Aus public to be very interesting, the Baggy Green really is revered, in a way no UK sports team ever has in my lifetime.
I think Smith & Bancroft might appeal and be back playing before 12 months, but Warner really has assumed panto villain role now and looks less likely to play internationally again.

Time will tell if this changes the way Oz cricketers as a whole behave on the field. Not that they are the only ones who could take a look in the mirror....

Re: Cricket
 

A comparison that really isn't valid.

The football 'dive' is a act that is made in full view of spectators and referee all of whom are able to make reasoned judgements whether the context justifies the act.

In contrast, the roughening of the surface of the cricket ball is an act perfromed in secret and one intended never to be open to scrutiny.

However, both acts are contrary to rules of the game and you're right that the more common soccer foul is treated lightly and perhaps it shouldn't be.

Re: Cricket
 

How is rubbing a ball around one's crutch so as to make it shine not tampering with a ball so as to effect its performance?

Re: Cricket
 

Now that is an interesting question, and a corollary would be 'If a bowler falls such that his trousers become dirty, does this mean that he has can no longer use the trouser material to 'condition' the ball?' Similarly, 'Are bowlers' trousers tested for contamination, eg waxing, before matches?'

A can of worms and one that condemns our australian cousins to the charge of 'stupidity' when a little imagination should be able to achieve a similar objective to using 'yellow sandpaper'.

Re: Cricket
 

Law 41 mate.

(from https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cr...1-unfair-play/)

41.3.2 It is an offence for any player to take any action which changes the condition of the ball.

Except in carrying out his/her normal duties, a batsman is not allowed to wilfully damage the ball. See also Law 5.5 (Damage to the ball).

A fielder may, however

41.3.2.1 polish the ball on his/her clothing provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.

41.3.2.2 remove mud from the ball under the supervision of an umpire.

41.3.2.3 dry a wet ball on a piece of cloth that has been approved by the umpires.

Re: Cricket
 

So the comparison is valid then. :lol:


I'd argue that's actually very similar.

While the dive is made in full view, it is disguised just as the ball tampering is disguised as something legitimate.

Where I would argue the two are different is in who gains and who loses.

With the ball tampering, if the cheating team wins the cheating team loses. As a team.

In football, with the dive, the same thing can happen PLUS the individual made to look guilty of the foul can be dismissed in shame and banned for subsequent matches, wrongly denied of special occasions/career highlights as well as loss of earnings.

That makes it quite a bit worse in my book and more worthy of the kind of response we've seen.

Re: Cricket
 

I recall seeing cricket white trousers with a built in ball rubbing patch a few years back; as one of the minority that prefers the chest to soothe the ball on, of little interest to me. And probably beyond my usual price range.

Re: Cricket
 

Oh dear first day of Lord's test was a bit of a disaster for Eng :(

Re: Cricket
 

Oh dear indeed. Pakistan 350 for 8 in reply after the second day. Can you say "innings defeat?"

Re: Cricket
 

Question for anyone listening to the ball by ball commentary of West Indies V England on Talksport. How do you like the Talksport coverage compared to the BBC's Test Match Special?

Re: Cricket
 

Re: Cricket
 

Good to see a civilised thread come back up.

Re: Cricket
 

The 24/7 Cricket streaming platform Willow TV is on Free Preview on telus optic tv channel 2372. hope its stays free for the world cup starting 30th May

Re: Cricket
 

I keep checking Willow Cricket but they haven't announced anything about the World Cup. Apparently they have the rights to it but they they're taking their sweet time about it.

Re: Cricket
 

On the telus guide for CH2372....Thursday 30th May 2.30am Pacific time, opening game of world cup, England V South Africa Live. Dont know if it will still be free.

Re: Cricket
 

https://sportstar.thehindu.com/crick...le27226588.ece

I had quite a giggle at this warm up game...

http://livetv.sx/enx/ Is quite handy for finding online streams.

Re: Cricket
 

Re: Cricket
 

Glad I didn't watch that :(

Re: Cricket
 

This is looking very worrying.

Re: Cricket
 

Is it still too early to be optimistic? Or are we still in mockers territory?

Re: Cricket
 

just catching up on the reports. That looks like it was a proper thrashing. Well played England.

Can they do the same to the Kiwis?

Re: Cricket
 

:fingerscrossed:

Re: Cricket
 

Re: Cricket
 

I missed a wicket.

Re: Cricket
 

Re: Cricket
 

Just when you think you've seen it all.

Re: Cricket
 

Re: Cricket
 

A brilliant day today.

Re: Cricket
 

That was proper intense. Blood pressure through the roof stuff...

Re: Cricket
 

I missed the action on Sunday (just too much to watch on a lovely sunny day - what with Wimbledon, the Grand Prix and the Bastille Day stage of Le Tour - and the backyard beckoning strongly) but, having read the reports, I caught up yesterday evening with a highlights package. What a game - and what a finish! After the first-ever Championship Tie-Break in the tennis, to have a cricket world cup decided on a count-back seems somewhat fitting. And Hamilton won at Silverstone, and Geraint Thomas is in second place on the Tour, with Frenchman Julian Alaphilippe wearing yellow on Bastille Day. A good weekend.

I don't know what to think of the pundit-driven controversy over the "extra run" incident. Immediate thought is that the umpires made a decision, and in the subsequent deliveries the result of that ruling will have affected the decision-making of both bowlers and batsmen, so there's no telling what might have happened if it had gone the other way.

Re: Cricket
 

Exactly this.
It seems an odd rule, anyway, requiring the batsman to have crossed at the time of the throw. Why? If the ball hadn't hit the bat and he was 'in' then both batsmen would have been in (with there being no time to get the ball at the other end) with the second run having counted. I don't see why not crossing at the time of the throw has relevance.

But, yes, even had only 5 been added rather than 6, then a successful boundary attempt or a couple of twos would have won the game without the super over.

Even had it not reached the boundary and remained as only 2 runs, NZ may have sensed victory and subsequently maybe bowled/fielded a little more loosely.

Re: Cricket
 

Oink and anyone else- dunno what sources you usually use but I've just been watching on DAZN. I didn't know it was going to be on.

Having signed up for the Prem and Champs League footie this is a bonus.

Re: Cricket
 

Re: Cricket
 

Wow! Did you see that this morning Oink? Not the shite Spurs performance but Stokesy before it?

I wasn't a fan of DAZN but now I have test cricket again I'm warming up to it.

That Ben Stokes performance was the finest by an England player in my 31 years of watching Cricket. England's best win since 2005.

I couldn't believe how quickly Stokesy rattled off the last 70 odd runs either. What a player and what a performance!

Check out Stokes' reverse sweep 6 at 3mins17secs!

​​​​​​

Re: Cricket
 

I was just beginning to get annoyed hearing that awful filler 'music' on DAZN between the two footie matches and I thought, I know, let's see if we lost the cricket yet...not having checked it during play yesterday, expecting the worst.

:eek: :egyptian:

Edge of seat stuff. Lightning strikes twice. What a season after being on the front pages for the wrong reasons.

Re: Cricket
 

Ok... So let's be a little controversial.
England deserved to have lost and should have. Why?
Because, in rugby,and any number of other 'team' games, there are 'specialists' whose job it is to perform specialised tasks.
We don't expect goalkeepers in soccer to bound up the field to score the winning goal. They could but that isn't what they're there for.
So when Stokes, rated as an all rounder, has to do the business because those whose job it was to secure victory failed so emphatically demonstrates what a shambles of a batting lineup the england squad has.
It's long past time that england selectors sacked themselves en masse and made way for others who might, just might, be able to do a better job in picking the very best because it's about time that doing their job was put before choosing what wine to drink with lunch.
But they'll get in yet another case of bubbly, lauding Stokes, and his equally laudable tail end partners, as part of their plan all along and give themselves a collective pat on the back saying 'Didn't we do a good job picking Stokes' instead of 'Who picked these wastes of space we put into bat first?'.