Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings??

[King]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/redir.aspx?ID=2fba090c-1e70-4944-857a-9a97b1418b84 Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? It was a tremendous knock of 149 at a strike rate approaching 150. But a knock which may still not be legal to many who witnessed that mindboggling innings. Whether Gilchrist was only ethically wrong, or legally wrong too in putting a squash ball in his glove in the final is debatable. But what is certainly not debatable is the tardiness of ICC in coming out with a response on whether putting the ball in the glove was illegal indeed. Ethically wrong Gilchrist definitely was, as it was an accessory to an equipment which the opposition was not aware of. But legally, was he in the wrong?. It is very important to know the answer because if the aluminium bat once used by Dennis Lilee, or Hansie Cronje?s on-field communication through earpiece with late Woolmer can be deemed illegal, squash ball to help batting does need a close look. Interesting points have been raised by bloggers in respone to an article in Courier Mail, an Australian newspaper, and some other sites. One writes, "can a batsman carry an object, in this case, a squash ball not connected with cricket to help him on the field? He asks if Gilchrist did secure the prior permission of the umpires and was the fielding side captain aware of the use of the squash ball?" "And, above all, and in a manner of speaking, did Gilchrist?s hidden ball give him an unfair advantage in knocking the daylights out of the Lankan bowlers?" Another blogger says that the laws of cricket are very precise on protective gear and "this device cannot be termed as a protective gear and only be termed as a power enhancing substance. Nowhere in the cricketing laws have they approved the squash ball as a protective gear". Vijitha Herath of the University of Paderborn, Germany, writes that "When a batsman swings the bat until it hits the ball, there is pressure on his bottom hand. This pressure compresses the squash ball thus storing energy in the ball similar to spring. Just after the ball hits the bat (ball still touching the bat) this pressure starts to relax while the bat is moving forward. At the same time the energy stored in the squash ball releases its energy to the bat in the form of kinetic energy." He says the net result is that "the bat moves faster than normal (without a ball in the glove). As a result, the release-speed of the cricket ball becomes faster resulting in the ball travelling further before hitting the ground. Therefore it results in more sixes and fours being scored." Herath also says that the "downside is that because the bat travels faster than normal the batsman might lose control of the bat. This happened once in the Adam Gilchrist?s innings when the bat slipped out of his hands and fell behind the wickets."

[Lurker]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? Ravi, Quite honestly I am confused on where my own thinking is regarding this one. On one hand it does seem like Gilly did push the rules a little bit by adding a foreign object inside his gloves, on the other hand this is nothing new. I mean many batsmen wear couple of inners inside their gloves, many wicket keepers use multiple layer inside their gloves, heck if I am not mistaken Rodney Marsh used to keep with steak meat at times to cushion his fingers. So if the latter was not cheating how did Gilly cheat now?? xx

[Bumper]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? This is like Cronje walking into the field with a radio device. Not sure either Cronje nor Gilly were deliberately pushing the rules. They prolly thought there wasnt anything wrong in it. To his credit Gilly did flaunt the squash ball to indicate there was no malicious intent there. But rules are rules. Gilly must be censured/fined for this.

[Holysmoke]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? Wearing Inner gloves is for protection. not for power. What gilly did is closer to Ponting using the graphite covering on his bat, as compared to Hussain and others wearing inner gloves.

[head coach]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? Is there any ICC rule that prohibit this? I doubt SL is gonna win on this case? Many have done similar things in past.

[gs]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? I wouldnt call this cheating, but maybe innovative!! On the same logic wouldnt using heavier bats be cheating as well (since it imparts power to the shot and carries the ball much further)? On being a non-protective equipment, what do you make of Steve Waugh carrying a red handkerchief? He had some kinda superstition associated with it and its presence made him mentally stronger which might have reflected in his performance. Would that be considered as a performance enhancing substance? On a similar note, would wearing ice vests or padded underwear (which probably helps in better positioning the center guard) classify as cheating? Both of these are not protective equipment, in most cases the umpires and opposition captain are unaware of this, and they might potentially result in better performance. :shrug:

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? This is really a joke. It's not like Gilly had secretly hidden cork in his bat or something like that for extra power. He had squash ball in his glove for god's sake and I am sure if he had plans to cheat in his mind, then he wouldn't have signaled to the dressing room the way he did by indicating foreign substance in his glove. Lankans are proving to be sore losers, thats all. Does anybody here seriously think that guys like Laxman will become a power hitter if they start using squash ball in their gloves! :hic: Jesus , lankans better get over it.

[King]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? The underwear is not padded GS, they come with a pocket in the front where you can slip in a box. As for comparison between heavier bat and a squash ball in the glove goes, that's comparing orange with apples. One is part of the sport called cricket and another an external object from a different sport. Squash balls are highly flexible and affords better grip. I think the research is right, it provides that extra bit of spongy hit when the ball is hit. As for the rag Steve Waugh carried, that hardly adds to anyone's performance. As for the rag making him mentally strong, it is only in the mind. No way scientifically you can prove the rag helped him better the results. I think it was unfair and a smack on the rules of cricket. It is arrogance not to respect the rules and usually the Aussies care a hoot for these rules anyways. ICC as ever will sit on their lazy bum till the date when some start carrying all sorts of external equipment in the name of innovation. How is this any different from scratching the ball or say applying external material to the ball? When the bowlers do it, it is diabolical but when the batters try the same, is it just fine? Do you guys remember the graphite that was slipped in the Kokaburra bats a while ago?

[King]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? BTW does anyone reckon ICC needs to make a statement about this one at all? It is shocking they haven't said a word about this as yet. They have match referees for all sorts of things. I remember the match referee and the umpires checking Tendulkar's bat width in Australia in 2003-04. How about ICC makes a statement about this issue? Either say it was allowed or not and put to rest this issue forever. Looks like they are going to let this go by just like match fixing and chucking.

[The Outsider]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? I feel the issue is being blown out of proportion, Ravi. Fine he used a squash ball but if the ICC were to classify that as illegal, he can easily get custom gloves with the same sort of padding the squash ball provided. There are no statutes on what the gloves should be like and as long as all he did was modify the gloves I dont see anything wrong.

[Lurker]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings??

BTW does anyone reckon ICC needs to make a statement about this one at all? It is shocking they haven't said a word about this as yet. They have match referees for all sorts of things. I remember the match referee and the umpires checking Tendulkar's bat width in Australia in 2003-04. How about ICC makes a statement about this issue? Either say it was allowed or not and put to rest this issue forever. Looks like they are going to let this go by just like match fixing and chucking.

No I do not reckon ICC is going to make any statement about this. Truth be told ICC has become obsolete by the day. Be it match fixing, chucking, drugs or now these. What are they gonna say anyway? If they go against Gilly the strong Australian lobby shall throw all the past instances of such happening. If they go against SL(for bringing this up) then Asian countries shall contest that. So ICC will just sit on it. Not taking away the fact that the entire ICC Adminstration body is facing music about the way World Cup had been handled. xxx

[Predator_05]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? The crux of the issue should be whether or not wearing a glove over a squash ball enhances a batsman's performance ? Did the use of a squash ball make Gilchrist bat better as a consequence ? I don't think so. The only objects which should be banned are those which enhance performance in one way or the other - ie; altering the condition of the ball without informing the umpire gives bowlers an unfair advantage and can enhance their performance (by imparting crazy movement on the ball), using a graphite strip in a cricket bat can enhance performance because you are able to get a harder hit than you would with a normal bat. The squash ball doesn't have a performance-enhancing effect, hence why i don't think it's cheating.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? if any icc rule prohibidts this then guilty otherwise srilankans are just whining.. To be fair to them they got wrong end of light condition if nto for the poor light noway in hell sangkaara wud have missed that lolly pop ball on which he got out. But then it's all said and done.. Even against us in 2003 rain came and made outfiel sluggish thereby sho after shot started resulting into ball stopping within the boundary on its own

[King]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings??

The crux of the issue should be whether or not wearing a glove over a squash ball enhances a batsman's performance ? Did the use of a squash ball make Gilchrist bat better as a consequence ? I don't think so. The only objects which should be banned are those which enhance performance in one way or the other - ie; altering the condition of the ball without informing the umpire gives bowlers an unfair advantage and can enhance their performance (by imparting crazy movement on the ball)' date=' using a graphite strip in a cricket bat can enhance performance because you are able to get a harder hit than you would with a normal bat. The squash ball doesn't have a performance-enhancing effect, hence why i don't think it's cheating.[/quote'] I won't call it cheating but that was not played under the fair rules. There was an influence of external thingy and that is something the ICC has to look into. There is a clear rule that says external objects cannot be used and this is a smack on that rule. Also to go around calling this act as genius or innovative is a bit going OTT. Clearly he did something irrespective of whether to cheat or not that was not fair. Now jog your memory back to Rahul Dravid's ball tampering allegation. A lot said he didn't cheat which was fair enough but did the referee let him go scot free. Of course not he was reprimanded for his act. He put a lozenge by chance on the ball (as I've known) and the umpire reported him to the referee. The referee Lloyd accused him of act of ball tampering and duly docked him his match fees (I think). We all know what Bucknor did the next game to humiliate Rahul Dravid. How is this incidence any different from Rahul Dravid's?

[Predator_05]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings??

I won't call it cheating but that was not played under the fair rules. There was an influence of external thingy and that is something the ICC has to look into. There is a clear rule that says external objects cannot be used and this is a smack on that rule. Also to go around calling this act as genius or innovative is a bit going OTT. Clearly he did something irrespective of whether to cheat or not that was not fair. Now jog your memory back to Rahul Dravid's ball tampering allegation. A lot said he didn't cheat which was fair enough but did the referee let him go scot free. Of course not he was reprimanded for his act. He put a lozenge by chance on the ball (as I've known) and the umpire reported him to the referee. The referee Lloyd accused him of act of ball tampering and duly docked him his match fees (I think). We all know what Bucknor did the next game to humiliate Rahul Dravid. How is this incidence any different from Rahul Dravid's?

Night and day. It's completely different because Dravid's action could be constituted as an offence, as he was altering the condition of the ball with the lozenge. That can also be classed as an action intended to illegally enhance performance. Dravid could plead ignorance for doing so, as he may not have done it intentionally but it was still an offence nonetheless. Gilchrist using a squash ball wasn't enhancing his performance, at least there is no documented evidence which can certifiably acknowledge that a squash ball underneath your glove will help you hit the ball harder or consequently enable you to score more runs. Whereas it's 100% certain that using anything to alter the condition of the ball can provide the bowler with an unfair advantage and thereby enhance his performance. Hence why scratching the ball, using cream/vaseline/dirt/lozenge/bottle tops are all outlawed. The laws pertaining to external objects apply only to such items which actually allow cricketers to manipulate the game to their advantage. That is the crux - whether use of any particular item enables a cricketer to attain some unfair advantage over the opponent. I'd say using anything - even if it isn't legitimate cricketing gear (ie; the squash ball) - while playing is perfectly alright as long as you stay within the rules and it doesn't enhance your performance in anyway. This is the way i'd interpret the law. Now it's up to the ICC to determine what kind of gear can and cannot be allowed onto the pitch, but as of right now - Gilchrist isn't violating any rule.

[King]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings??

Whereas it's 100% certain that using anything to alter the condition of the ball can provide the bowler with an unfair advantage and thereby enhance his performance.

How do you know lozenge on the ball enhances bowler's performance but not squash ball in the glove? Why do you think Gilly was pointing to the gloves after he got his 100 in the first place? He was saying the squash ball was working very well. Gilly when acknowledged to the telly, pretty much was indicating his performance improved thanks to the squash ball otherwise we won't be debating this at all.

[Anakin]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings??

Whereas it's 100% certain that using anything to alter the condition of the ball can provide the bowler with an unfair advantage and thereby enhance his performance.

How do you know lozenge on the ball enhances bowler's performance but not squash ball in the glove? Why do you think Gilly was pointing to the gloves after he got his 100 in the first place? He was saying the squash ball was working very well. Gilly when acknowledged to the telly, pretty much was indicating his performance improved thanks to the squash ball otherwise we won't be debating this at all.

Exactly

[Anakin]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? And the lozenge would only make it harder, I don't think bowlers would enjoy a sticky ball, even McGrath or some other oz big mouth said similar thing. Also one was pure mindlessness, another one was quite deliberate. Common sense would suggest something has to be more beneficial to be used deliberately.

[Predator_05]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings??

Whereas it's 100% certain that using anything to alter the condition of the ball can provide the bowler with an unfair advantage and thereby enhance his performance.

How do you know lozenge on the ball enhances bowler's performance but not squash ball in the glove? Why do you think Gilly was pointing to the gloves after he got his 100 in the first place? He was saying the squash ball was working very well. Gilly when acknowledged to the telly, pretty much was indicating his performance improved thanks to the squash ball otherwise we won't be debating this at all.

Dravid was SHINING one side of the ball with the lozenge, ie; illegally altering the condition of the ball. That is prohibited by law. It was ball-tampering - simple as that, intentional or not. You shine one side of the ball, scruff up the other and you get reverse swing - enhanced performance. Come on, you know this already. ...and so what if Gilchrist liked the squash ball against his hand ? Has it been proven that the cushion from a squash ball enables a batsman to hit the ball better than they normally would ? As of right now, it doesn't mean anything and Gilchrist is safe

[The Outsider]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? I think some of us are missing the point here. There is no ICC/MCC specification on the type of gloves that are allowed to be used. Whats the difference between sticking a squash ball between your glove and hand vs. getting exactly the same kind of padding stuffed in your glove?