The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > War on 'tampering' > Comments

War on 'tampering' : Comments

By Rob Shilkin, published 28/8/2006

Stump by stump, the cricketing freedoms for which we have batted, bowled and fielded for so long, are being knocked over.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
How can we hope to win the war on tampering when Bush doesn't even know the rules? Shall we submit to the international Islamo-tamperers? Has Democracy no future in umpiring?

This article really should have probed deeper into the heart of the challenges facing cricket today.
Posted by Kalin, Monday, 28 August 2006 10:00:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too soon...

;)
Posted by hadz, Monday, 28 August 2006 10:22:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article. Its a vexed question. Some more here http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/2006/08/darrell-hair-pakistan-hairy-chests-all.html#links if interested
Posted by The Examiner, Monday, 28 August 2006 10:45:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The lollies should come out of the mouths of the cricketers and the Lolly out of cricket.Are lawyers necessary in a game when cricket played between friends should be fun.
Posted by Vioetbou, Monday, 28 August 2006 10:58:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very clever and very funny and very sobering. Whether it should have been filed under "sport" is debatable, but then it couldn't really go under "humour". This household chose to chuckle.
Posted by chainsmoker, Monday, 28 August 2006 4:08:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course all this issue really shows is that cricket really needs to adopt post-modernist 'rules', or rather 'non-rules', where fairness can only be defined according to the narrative that has shaped the culture of origin of the players.

That is, if a team says that they don't cheat, according to their defining narrative they indeed do not cheat. If a bowler says that they do not chuck, then their narrative confirms that they do not chuck. After all, its only 15° of difference between chucking and not chucking, maybe the difference should be whatever the bowler thinks it should be?

In fact, why do we even need umpires in the game of cricket? If, as some teams state, they never cheat, then it is not necessary to have anyone to adjudicate, just the individual players to decide whether they have been been fairly bowled or run out, or whether a ball has been fairly bowled.
Posted by Hamlet, Monday, 28 August 2006 8:53:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely the point made by Gideon Haigh on 'The Insiders' (Sunday, 28th August) relating to conflict within the ICC's rules, sheets responsibility straight back to the ICC itself. To paraphrase Haigh: One rule permits ball polishing (including the use of spittle and rubbing it with sawdust etc) while a second rule outlaws ball tampering. I can't see the difference, or am I thick ? And to further confuse the issue on a practical level, what was the match referee, Mike Proctor, doing in the Pakistani teams' rooms when by rights he had no right to be there !

Spokes
Posted by SPOKES, Monday, 28 August 2006 9:28:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dont know if thiss is cimmidy or not
Political correctness skewws everything and you get to wondering if
right is actually wrong or black is white

Of course if the rules are only there for some of the contestants then there not rules are they

The sooks are taking over the world and I wish theyd just pack up
and go home

Ha Ha
Posted by normman, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 5:26:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's the point of this article? If "Whether ul Huq illegally altered the properties of the cricket ball is, frankly, not relevant to his trial", then what is?

"the evidence used against ul Huq (namely, The Ball) is clearly inadmissible. No legal counsel was present at the time this evidence was provided to the umpires."

Perhaps I've missed something, but that big green oval is called a Cricket Field, not a Witness Box. If no legal council was present, it would follow that no legal council was required. Perhaps a fourth umpire would fix the problem? A lawyer, standing mid-wicket at every suburban match, every weekend, in every town around the country?
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 12:47:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy