Saint Gilly is a cheat

[Guest HariSampath]

By no means.

Then show according to the laws that a squash ball is legal, and what point do you have to counter what I had shown above ( according to the official MCC Laws of cricket)

[sydneyfan]

When asked to rule on the legality of the squash ball this is what the MCc said: "The MCC said the relevant rule only stated what external protective equipment was allowed. For batsmen, helmets, pads, gloves and forearm guards are all listed as permitted. "None has any definition or prescription," the MCC said. "Since there is no restriction in law even on the external form of batting gloves, let alone the interior thereof, no law has been breached." " As someone expert in interpreting laws I agree with the MCC. Most of what the bloggers wrote at the time and most of what is written here is incorrect according to law and more hysteria rather than a factual legal opinion based on credible legal expertise.

[sydneyfan]

he could clearly see his bat was nowhere near the ball and he was standing right behinf the stumps. dont defend him' date=' i know he is a legend but even legends make mistakes sometimes.[/quote'] No that is only your opinion based on what you could see from the television coverage replays. You in fact have no idea whether he clearly knew or not - and as an expeirenced wicketkeeper I know that sometimes it is impossible to know from behind the stumps - especially when you hear a noise - and the replays confirm a noise simultaneous with the ball passing the bat - and nearly all wicketkeepers use this noise as thje basis of an appeal because it is almost impossible for the human eye to tell due to the speed with which the ball travels. You can argue all you like - but the fACT is you do not KNOW whether Gilchrist 'clearly knew' - it is just your very uninformed opinion.

[cochise]

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!

No that is only your opinion based on what you could see from the television coverage replays. You in fact have no idea whether he clearly knew or not - and as an expeirenced wicketkeeper I know that sometimes it is impossible to know from behind the stumps - especially when you hear a noise - and the replays confirm a noise simultaneous with the ball passing the bat - and nearly all wicketkeepers use this noise as thje basis of an appeal because it is almost impossible for the human eye to tell due to the speed with which the ball travels. You can argue all you like - but the fACT is you do not KNOW whether Gilchrist 'clearly knew' - it is just your very uninformed opinion.

And you were sure that Dhoni knew above? His and the twelfth man's disgust would suggest otherwise. Any double standard at play here? Or were you complaining about their behaviour? If so, we have all seen how Aussies react when not given a wicket they were convinced they had.

[Donny]

Hari is kidding himself - and not for the first time. Tell me Hari, how many times has a batsman been out after the ball hit theinside of his batting glove ??

[sydneyfan]

And you were sure that Dhoni knew above? His and the twelfth man's disgust would suggest otherwise. Any double standard at play here? Or were you complaining about their behaviour? If so, we have all seen how Aussies react when not given a wicket they were convinced they had.

No I didnt object to the appeal at all by Dhoni. However the length of time it went on was extraordinary - the longest ongoing appeal Ive seen in Test cricket. Then the two minutes of chatter afterwards not allowing the batsman to resume his stance. Yes it is the behaviour I am objecting too - not the appeal. And yes the Australian have often behaved badly - i have no problem calling a spade a spade - but you are the ones who claim to be the 'gentleman' and 'to play within the spirit of the game.' This incident proves that this is not always the case - and people in glass houses have to be careful about throwing stones.

[cochise]

For batsmen, helmets, pads, gloves and forearm guards are all listed as permitted. "None has any definition or prescription," the MCC said. "Since there is no restriction in law even on the external form of batting gloves, let alone the interior thereof, no law has been breached." "

I don't want to split hairs as I personally think it is okay to use a squash ball in your glove. However, the argument above states that "helmets, pads, gloves and forearm guards are all listed as permitted". Thus, the question then becomes whether a squash ball is permitted equipment. By the dry interpretation of the law, one would have to conclude that it is not as it does not appear on the list UNLESS it can be shown to be PART of the glove in itself or appears explicitly on the list of permitted items. This is the kind of hair-splitting that seems to appear in commentary boxes during cricket matches...all kinds of things like squash balls, webbing, bat designs etc etc are poured over in detail. Is this really necessary? Can't we just use common sense...or a sporting sense about it all and leave the lawyers arguments out?

[Guest HariSampath]

Hari is kidding himself - and not for the first time. Tell me Hari, how many times has a batsman been out after the ball hit theinside of his batting glove ??

Donny is now ignoring the main point , and it wont be the last time. I had clearly proved that a squash ball is NOT part of any protective gear and also it is a "part of bat" as by definition. Now, it may not be possible to be caught off the inside part of the glove, but as long as something is a grip enhancer/play enhancer that is not protective equipment, it becomes illegal. For example the art of batting requires loosening of the grip, rotating the grip or sometimes not rotating the grip , all in order to deal with various types of deliveries like bouncing ball, seaming etc. All these things are key batting skillls and batters are expected to perform them without any external aid and their performances are directly a result of so many cricket skills. The squash ball was not put in by Gilly for no reason or because it was any superstition, it was specifically used to assist the grip on the handle, and being a small ball, it would also act as a "ball bearing" in facilitating rotation of the handle. This squash ball is NOT any part of protective equipment as defined by the laws and as it is part of the "batting equipment" , it naturally becomes illegal. It is something like using coiled springs within the glove , coating outside edges with chemicals that slow down edges, having a coat of grease on palm that changes the ball's shine, wearing a ring that is abrasive and scuffs up the ball, using wood or something else inside pads that prevent the ball from bouncing off bat-pads etc...ALL these are NOT part of defined cricket equipment and are clearly done for the only purpose of gaining an unfair advantage, and hence illegal

[Guest HariSampath]

When asked to rule on the legality of the squash ball this is what the MCc said: "The MCC said the relevant rule only stated what external protective equipment was allowed. For batsmen, helmets, pads, gloves and forearm guards are all listed as permitted. "None has any definition or prescription," the MCC said. "Since there is no restriction in law even on the external form of batting gloves, let alone the interior thereof, no law has been breached." "As someone expert in interpreting laws I agree with the MCC. Most of what the bloggers wrote at the time and most of what is written here is incorrect according to law and more hysteria rather than a factual legal opinion based on credible legal expertise.

Wrong. There is inner "protective gear" that is allowed, example box protector, thigh guard, inner gloves etc but the key thing is ALL these have been defined as "fabric" as well as performing a protective function. The squash ball DOES NOT fall under category of fabric nor is it protective equipment.

[Whisper]

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:

:haha::haha::haha: no India are the T20 world championship holders. Slight difference there. Thats like Fiji trying to claim they are the rugby world champions because they won the rugby 7s

[King Tendulkar]

:haha::haha::haha: no India are the T20 world championship holders. Slight difference there. Thats like Fiji trying to claim they are the rugby world champions because they won the rugby 7s

We are the wrold champs. Suck it up and take the medicine. Yuvraj smoked you out in the semis when you mentally disentegrated against india. Just accept it chump INDIA ARE THE WORLD CHAMPIONS:yay:

[Whisper]

ORLY? i must have dreamed that tournament that happened in the West Indies last year then.. you know the one where India didn't make it past the group stage?

[King Tendulkar]

ORLY? i must have dreamed that tournament that happened in the West Indies last year then.. you know the one where India didn't make it past the group stage?

I must have dreamed another world cup tournament after the one you dreamnt about in SA where we beat the aussies and then won the final and became WORLD CHAMPIONS!

[Whisper]

oh i see... you mean Mickey Mouse cricket, yeah?

[King Tendulkar]

oh i see... you mean Mickey Mouse cricket' date=' yeah?[/quote'] World Champions of cricket INDIA Read it and weep sucker:finger:

[pete_mac]

World Champions of cricket INDIA Read it and weep sucker:finger:

Pffft! Become the No. 1 test team and win the World Cup a few times... THEN start bragging!:haha:

[sydneyfan]

Wrong. There is inner "protective gear" that is allowed, example box protector, thigh guard, inner gloves etc but the key thing is ALL these have been defined as "fabric" as well as performing a protective function. The squash ball DOES NOT fall under category of fabric nor is it protective equipment.

You are completely incorrect. What i quoted exactly was the expert opinion of the MCC who administer the laws. You are just somebody on a message board expressing a personal opinion. As a lawyer I agree wtih the MCC. Competent experts disagree with your uninformed opnion - you are not in a position to judge expert legal opnion as 'incorrect' - you may express a belief that they are wrong - just they probably happen to have far greater expertise and knowledge than you do. And to judge someone as a 'cheat' when the people who administer the laws say what he did was legal is just obscene and laughable.

[cochise]

Sydneyfan, As to the above reply, appealing to authority does not an argument make. One can and must examine the facts for oneself.

And yes the Australian have often behaved badly - i have no problem calling a spade a spade - but you are the ones who claim to be the 'gentleman' and 'to play within the spirit of the game.' This incident proves that this is not always the case - and people in glass houses have to be careful about throwing stones.

I think it is fairly obvious that they are emulating the trendsetters here...particularly as Australia is also the top team in the world at present.

[King Tendulkar]

Pffft! Become the No. 1 test team and win the World Cup a few times... THEN start bragging!:haha:

We have won 2 different world cups in 2 different formats. Thus showing our versatility something the aussies have yet to do:hysterical: I repeat India are the current cricket world champions:isalute:

[pete_mac]

We have won 2 different world cups in 2 different formats. Thus showing our versatility something the aussies have yet to do:hysterical: I repeat India are the current cricket world champions:isalute:

A world cup win 25 years ago and the recent T20 win doesn't quite stack up to a team which has accrued three consecutive one day world cup wins and two of the longest test match winning streaks in history. India is probably one of the top three sides in the world at the moment, but to truly be the world champs they need to be more consistent over a long period of time, win the one day world cup, and beat the other dominant teams in several test series.