Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings??

[veer]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? dont fielders and bowlers tape fingers and palm to grip balls while bowling and fielding..??? i see lot of Indian fielders, specially yuvi, tape-up half of their palms..

[Cricketics]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? yeh harami lankans tab kuch nahi bhok rahe the, when murliz and fernendoz and vasses and jayas were putting sunscreen one full bottle..

[veer]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? and what about that murali's catch in semi from Oram.. that was a blatant cheating.. and murali knew it..

[King]

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

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

Rahul wasn't shining the ball with the lozenge Pred. While trying to use the spit (it's common to use spit as you know to shine the ball) whatever little that was left of lozenge in his mouth dropped on the ball and Dravid was trying to take that little piece of lozenge off the ball. Shining the ball is an art and a lot of teams have designated players to shine the ball. While mutilating the ball is an offence shining is not. Of course using external material on the ball is not fair and I have no problems with Rahul pinged for it. I do have a problem with Gilly instance though.

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?

There are so many unwritten rules in cricket Shwetabh. It is more of a common sense to not use external stuff to aid batting or bowling. When Dennis Lillee used the aluminum bat there was no rule the bat shouldn't be made of aluminum but then ICC did bring a rule about only using wood for bat. I'm not aware of any rule that specifies fielders shouldn't be using a glove to catch the ball too. Do you reckon it would be an offence if the slip fielders used one? Simply put I?m tired of this freakin ICC not even taking a stand on anything. Either say Gilly didn?t do anything wrong or say it was unethical. Believe me, if ICC does say he did the right thing they will be have created another huge mess in international cricket just like they did with tampering and chucking.

[Holysmoke]

Re: Why is ICC mum on Gilly?s innings?? The International Cricket Council (ICC) has dismissed Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) officials? claim that Adam Gilchrist?s use of a squash ball in his batting gloves during the World Cup final was unethical. ?The incident could not be classed either as contravening the Law or as breaching the spirit of the game,? ICC spokesman Brian Murgatroyd said in an e-mail to The Telegraph. An agency report from Colombo said SLC secretary Kangadaran Mathivanan would take up the matter during ICC?s annual general meeting next month. ?We are of the opinion that it was unethical for Gilchrist to use a squash ball ... it gave him unfair advantage,? Mathivanan said. The ICC says: ?The Law specifies only what external protective equipment is permitted for particular players. The only item for which any specification is given is wicketkeeper?s gloves. ?Helmets, external leg guards (batting pads), batting gloves and forearm gloves (if visible) are all listed as permitted for batsmen. None has any definition or prescription. 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. ?The umpires are responsible under Law 3.6 © for seeing that no player uses equipment other than that permitted. Currently permitted equipment is limited to external items. Consequently there is no failure by either the umpires or others in charge of the players if they do not extend their observation to non-external items. ?Most players, including batsmen, wear other items for protection, but they are not visible and so not classed as external. Wicketkeepers traditionally wear ?inners? inside their gloves. No objection is raised to their doing so. ?Why should this be considered unfair? How could it be any less fair than the widespread practice of having two grips on the bat handle ? to which no objection, official or unofficial, has ever been raised??

[The Outsider]

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

?Helmets, external leg guards (batting pads), batting gloves and forearm gloves (if visible) are all listed as permitted for batsmen. None has any definition or prescription. 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. ?The umpires are responsible under Law 3.6 © for seeing that no player uses equipment other than that permitted. Currently permitted equipment is limited to external items. Consequently there is no failure by either the umpires or others in charge of the players if they do not extend their observation to non-external items.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.