sydneyfan Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 This is a disgusting thread dishonestly criticising a great player when he is about to retire. 1. Gilchrist has never said anything condescending about others who dont walk - he has always said it's his decision alone to do that and that what others do is up to them. That is not condescending. 2. Claiming Gilchrist delayed walking in the World Cup to embarrass an umpire is just a sick joke - it would be hilarious if it wasnt so sad and mean. 3. I have watched Gilchrist for years - I have seen many occasions when he has not appealed while the slips cordon has, because he knew it was not out. Appealing is not against the law. 4. Compare this to how Dhoni behaved in the Perth test match. Clarke pushes forward and misses the ball by over six inches to be 'caught' off his pads at short leg by the 12th man. Dhoni and the close in fieldsman appeal for an obvious miss for over 60 seconds - longest appeal ever seen. Then Dhoni sledges Clarke for over 2 minutes not allowing him to take stirke for the next ball. On the way off the field the 12th man spits at Clarke. Compared to Dhoni Glichrist sure is a saint! Link to comment
Kartikey Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 This is a disgusting thread dishonestly criticising a great player when he is about to retire. 1. Gilchrist has never said anything condescending about others who dont walk - he has always said it's his decision alone to do that and that what others do is up to them. That is not condescending. 2. Claiming Gilchrist delayed walking in the World Cup to embarrass an umpire is just a sick joke - it would be hilarious if it wasnt so sad and mean. 3. I have watched Gilchrist for years - I have seen many occasions when he has not appealed while the slips cordon has, because he knew it was not out. Appealing is not against the law. 4. Compare this to how Dhoni behaved in the Perth test match. Clarke pushes forward and misses the ball by over six inches to be 'caught' off his pads at short leg by the 12th man. Dhoni and the close in fieldsman appeal for an obvious miss for over 60 seconds - longest appeal ever seen. Then Dhoni sledges Clarke for over 2 minutes not allowing him to take stirke for the next ball. On the way off the field the 12th man spits at Clarke. Compared to Dhoni Glichrist sure is a saint! Why did Gilly appeal against Dravid at Sydney when he clearly knew the ball hit his pad not his bat or glove?????????????????? Link to comment
sydneyfan Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 How do you know he 'clearly knew'. As someone who has kept wickets for many years Ive often heard sounds and caught the ball and though they were clearly out only to be told by teammates it hit the pads - from behind the stumps you cant tell what it hit very often. It is only your uniformed opinion he 'clearly knew'. It could very easily be the case he didnt 'clearly know'! Link to comment
MundaPakistani Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 This is a disgusting thread dishonestly criticising a great player when he is about to retire. 1. Gilchrist has never said anything condescending about others who dont walk - he has always said it's his decision alone to do that and that what others do is up to them. That is not condescending. 2. Claiming Gilchrist delayed walking in the World Cup to embarrass an umpire is just a sick joke - it would be hilarious if it wasnt so sad and mean. 3. I have watched Gilchrist for years - I have seen many occasions when he has not appealed while the slips cordon has, because he knew it was not out. Appealing is not against the law. 4. Compare this to how Dhoni behaved in the Perth test match. Clarke pushes forward and misses the ball by over six inches to be 'caught' off his pads at short leg by the 12th man. Dhoni and the close in fieldsman appeal for an obvious miss for over 60 seconds - longest appeal ever seen. Then Dhoni sledges Clarke for over 2 minutes not allowing him to take stirke for the next ball. On the way off the field the 12th man spits at Clarke. Compared to Dhoni Glichrist sure is a saint! Don'y waste your time. I think the only reason you are taking dsr and the other kids seriously is because you are new to this forum. Fairly soon you will realize that dsr is a MASSIVE attention seeker. Link to comment
Anakin Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Don'y waste your time. I think the only reason you are taking dsr and the other kids seriously is because you are new to this forum. Fairly soon you will realize that dsr is a MASSIVE attention seeker. Whatever you wanna call him, he is right on the money Link to comment
Kartikey Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 How do you know he 'clearly knew'. As someone who has kept wickets for many years Ive often heard sounds and caught the ball and though they were clearly out only to be told by teammates it hit the pads - from behind the stumps you cant tell what it hit very often. It is only your uniformed opinion he 'clearly knew'. It could very easily be the case he didnt 'clearly know'! he could clearly see his bat was nowhere near the ball and he was standing right behinf the stumps. dont defend him, i know he is a legend but even legends make mistakes sometimes. Link to comment
Guest HariSampath Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 What about using an illegal thing as a squash ball to gain unfair advantage in batting ? Link to comment
16 str8 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 What about using an illegal thing as a squash ball to gain unfair advantage in batting ? Except for the little thing that...it's not illegal. :haha: Nothing stopping the Indians from stocking up their gloves with squash balls next time they go out to bat. It's nothing more than another reason for Indians to crack the sads and start whinging. Again. And again.... Link to comment
IndianRenegade Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Except for the little thing that...it's not illegal. :haha: Nothing stopping the Indians from stocking up their gloves with squash balls next time they go out to bat. It's nothing more than another reason for Indians to crack the sads and start whinging. Again. And again.... Red herring, Hari had already shown it is against the rules. Whether the some one is stopping the indians from doing it or not is red herring. Link to comment
Guest HariSampath Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Except for the little thing that...it's not illegal. :haha: Nothing stopping the Indians from stocking up their gloves with squash balls next time they go out to bat. It's nothing more than another reason for Indians to crack the sads and start whinging. Again. And again.... It IS ILLEGAL according to the laws of the game. Check Appendix D of the MCC's laws of cricket. Clearly illegal and what's more Gilly had gained an advantage out of the squash ball and scored 100 so it should have been declared void by ICC ( same as using a larger bat or a ball tampering) Link to comment
16 str8 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 It IS ILLEGAL according to the laws of the game. Check Appendix D of the MCC's laws of cricket. Clearly illegal and what's more Gilly had gained an advantage out of the squash ball and scored 100 so it should have been declared void by ICC ( same as using a larger bat or a ball tampering) :hysterical::haha::hysterical: ICC has no problem with it, so neither do I. It is legal. Sri Lanka's players have publicly stated they had no problem with Gilly using the squash balls. Why should you? Link to comment
IndianRenegade Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 :hysterical::haha::hysterical: ICC has no problem with it, so neither do I. It is legal. Sri Lanka's players have publicly stated they had no problem with Gilly using the squash balls. Why should you? Red herring, you seem to be the master of logical fallacy. Just because ICC doesn't take action against some one it doesn't mean what he did wasn't wrong. To prove it is not illegal you have to show how it doesn't affect the Law, you have to show where Hari was wrong. Not show some one didn't have a problem with Gilly. Link to comment
Guest HariSampath Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 :hysterical::haha::hysterical: ICC has no problem with it, so neither do I. It is legal. Sri Lanka's players have publicly stated they had no problem with Gilly using the squash balls. Why should you? ICC, you Australia and your uncle may not have a problem...BUT I DO, because it is proveably illegal according to the Laws of cricket, and it is just that SL didnt want to do anything after a wc final, and ICC just looked away. Clearly it is illegal ( see the laws in the other thread), and also no explanation was given by ICC as to how they called it legal, because no offcial complaint was lodged Link to comment
Guest HariSampath Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Appendix D from "Laws of cricket" External protective equipment is any visible item of apparel worn for protection against external blows. For a batsman, items permitted are a helmet, external leg guards (batting pads), batting gloves and, if visible, forearm guards.For a fielder, only a helmet is permitted, except in the case of a wicket-keeper, for whom wicket-keeping pads and gloves are also permitted. Clothing - anything that a player is wearing that is not classed as external protective equipment, including such items as spectacles or jewellery, is classed as clothing, even though he may be wearing some items of apparel, which are not visible, for protection. A bat being carried by a batsman does not come within this definition of clothing. The bat - the following are to be considered as part of the bat the whole of the bat itself. the whole of a glove (or gloves) worn on a hand (or hands) holding the bat. the hand (or hands) holding the bat, if the batsman is not wearing a glove on that hand or on those hands. Equipment - a batsman's equipment is his bat, as defined above, together with any external protective equipment that he is wearing. According to the definitions in the Laws of cricket, a squash ball is neither an external protective equipment nor any piece of clothing or even internal protective equipment. So a squash ball is certainly illegal. Also , the definition of a "bat" means the wooden bat PLUS the gloves holding the bat. In this case as a squash ball is inside the batting glove, it becomes part of the bat and as per definition of a standard cricket bat, it becomes an illegal addendum to the definition of a cricket bat as per the laws of cricket, and hence attracts the provision of law 42 ( fair and unfair play) Link to comment
16 str8 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Clearly it is illegal ( see the laws in the other thread), and also no explanation was given by ICC as to how they called it legal, because no offcial complaint was lodged If only India had been able to compete with decent teams in the world cup. I'm sure they would have whinged about it had they been in the final!! :haha: Link to comment
King Tendulkar Posted February 27, 2008 Author Share Posted February 27, 2008 If only India had been able to compete with decent teams in the world cup. I'm sure they would have whinged about it had they been in the final!! :haha: What you talking about??? We got to the final and won it. Beating pakistan. You have gone nuts and are in denial! Talk about trying to manipulate facts Deal with the reality INDIA ARE THE WORLD CHAMPIONS!:yay: Link to comment
Guest HariSampath Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 If only India had been able to compete with decent teams in the world cup. I'm sure they would have whinged about it had they been in the final!! :haha: So you do accept that Gilly was cheating ( according to the laws as shown above) ?:finger: Link to comment
IndianRenegade Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Funny, 16 str8 can't refute Hari points but rather keeps throwing one logical fallacy after another. Link to comment
16 str8 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 So you do accept that Gilly was cheating ( according to the laws as shown above) ?:finger: By no means. Link to comment
IndianRenegade Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 By no means. Then prove that he hasn't gone against the laws by refuting Hari, otherwise you are just in a state of denial. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now