The International Cricket Thread

[Monty]

I might be alone but I really can't get that angry about cheating in sport, and unless it's really as endemic and ruinous as Gatlin or Armstrong (and really, being a bit naughty to the ball has nothing on those) I can't get too exercised about punishment etc. The three of them should not have done what they did, but the laws of sport are often arbitrary about which cheeky advantages are permitted and which aren't.

[Ads]

Cheating makes me furious. At Crossfit last night there was a portion with a 120 cal row and one team was duping the row in change overs to make the clock tick over. It pisses me off hugely.

I also dont like a situation where a player like Bancroft is forced into a situation by his boss and his acolyte to cheat. It would be like a partner at work presurisng a trainee to back date a letter.

He's a very talented player, unorthodox and lures bowlers in to bowling too straight, but he will always be Smith the Cheat.

[Monty]

Why is it not ball tampering to rub the ball on your trousers to make it shiny, but it is to try and make it rough? If the minute difference that extra rough makes in the swing is so important because wickets are the crucial moments in a game, why is it not 'cheating' to not walk when you know you've nicked it but been given not out? What counts as cheating is often based on the arbitrary vagaries of the laws of the game.

[paul_e]

I think there's a scale. Armstrong, Gatlin, etc are at 1 extreme and should be vilified and have it completely define their career. Then you have people like Klinsmann who go down a bit cheaply and force the ref to make a decision at the other end. I'd say taking something onto the pitch to use to affect the ball and getting an inexperienced player to use it is somewhere in the middle but not quite as bad the Pakistani match-fixing stuff a few years back.

[Ads]

As the rules do not prohibit you from shining one side of the ball. The rules do prohibit you from taking an abrasive surface to it.

[Monty]

As the rules do not prohibit you from shining one side of the ball. The rules do prohibit you from taking an abrasive surface to it.

No offence meant but this is a quite magnificently Tory view of the world Ads!

[paul_e]

I think the fact that you're taking something onto the pitch with a premeditated plan to break the rules makes a difference. Something like treading on the ball so your spikes rough up the leather or throwing it into the ground are attempts to bend the rules and normally just get a warning. No one would get labelled as a cheat for doing that.

[taylorsworkrate]

There's always been a bizarre acceptance of some forms of cheating in sport. For instance is it not cheating when you appeal for a throw in when you know it came off you?

Theres always been an acceptance of not walking when you egde it, but someone who appeals for a catch when its just bounced is roundly berated.

[paul_e]

Back on topic, England pass 100 with just the 1 down so it been a better reply than we've seen, hopefully they can really push on from here.

Siddle is a great bowler, good line and length, but he's very dull to watch.

[hilts_coolerking]

As the rules do not prohibit you from shining one side of the ball. The rules do prohibit you from taking an abrasive surface to it.

No offence meant but this is a quite magnificently Tory view of the world Ads!

The rules also say you can't polish the ball using an artificial substance.  Such as sucking mints and then shining the ball, as England - particularly Trescothick - have admitted they did during the 2005 Ashes series.

[olaftab]

Rory Burns is now playing them as opposed to they having a go at him. And it’s all kicking off now in Rea Bank in a nice way.

[olaftab]

As the rules do not prohibit you from shining one side of the ball. The rules do prohibit you from taking an abrasive surface to it.

No offence meant but this is a quite magnificently Tory view of the world Ads!

The rules also say you can't polish the ball using an artificial substance.  Such as sucking mints and then shining the ball, as England - particularly Trescothick - have admitted they did during the 2005 Ashes series.

Who’s to decide if trousers are not artificial material?

[hilts_coolerking]

Who’s to decide if trousers are not artificial material?

Naked cricket.

[thick_mike]

Who’s to decide if trousers are not artificial material?

Naked cricket.

*insert balls/stump/googly joke here*

[Ads]

The Laws of Cricket 2017 Code.

Gods below, but without lawyers, you humans would be sacrificing virgins to ensure the sun rises and resorting to cannibalism within 9 minutes.