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

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

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?