Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket
-
-
There are a number of questions that need answering.
- For Bancroft to even offer suggests he knew it was already happening and was either briefed about it when joining the squad or saw it in his previous 8 tests? It is also very surprising he didnt say no and report it to the coach/manager, perhaps the coaches already knew so he went with the flow.
- To suggest this was the first time is niave, they wouldnt be tampering with the ball unless there was an advantage to be gained. It is likely they have gotten away with it before and were able to get a measurable advantage to make the risk worthwhile.
- I have suspicions this is systemic and has been occuring for some time. No doubt some interns at TV Channels are scouring hours of footage to find previous examples.
- Smith must have learnt this from someone, he has to have been doing it in previous teams to even know the techniques etc.
This really reflects very poorly on the squad and the ethics of the senior players. They all knowingly agreed to cheat and they were all ok with this. It will be interesting to see what unfolds from this.
-
Ball tampering is a part of the game at all levels. In Australia and everywhere else. I've seen a few different methods in my time - old bottle caps used to scratch, different shining agents, throwing the ball into concrete repeatedly during the lunch break.
Like sledging, there's an element here that you can't understand unless you've played the game. This isn't something they cooked up at the lunch break. It's been a part of the game for decades, at all levels, in all locations. They were too brazen, too stupid and they got caught.
-
This is a nice article.
oops @Virgil covers it below.
The ending sums it up for me.
So many people, even in Australia, have been waiting for an opportunity to express just how much they loathe the dark heart of this sensationally skilled team. A guileless attempt at roughing up one side of the ball is just a convenient tool. Don't cry for Smith and co, though. They've earned the disgrace. -
This is pretty much bang on..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12020237
-
You would think that someone would have done extensive testing on balls and how they swing based off certain tampering. Surely there has been some scientific research into this given teams are trying to always get a leg up. It must be worthwhile for them to do it.
From a psychological point of view the players must be able to justify this somehow. Judging off what barbarian mentioned perhaps the players believe every team is tampering with the ball in some way so why shouldn't they. It is then a slippery slope into cheating and after doing it for so long the players believe its just part of the game. Hence why so many players were ok with it.
It is also interesting to see so many ex Australian players coming out in horror of this. I find it very unlikely these players didnt partake or witness ball tampering in their long careers. Michael Clark surely must have had wind of this considering he played with Smith and Warner etc.
-
Well there is ball tampering and there is ball tampering.
The laws of the game permit you to tamper with the ball by shining it on your pants. That helps the ball to swing, giving your side an advantage. So it's not like this is a black and white issue.
What about deliberately scuffing the ball by bouncing the ball as you throw it to the keeper? Technically legal, but is it ethical? Certainly it's hard to police.
All the players you listed have certainly partaken in ball tampering of some description. But the line is very hard to define here, because some of it is legal.
Everyone knows this crosses the line, though.
-
-
@barbarian said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
Well there is ball tampering and there is ball tampering.
I was going to say the same thing regarding throws to the keeper. Players know when they want to bounce the ball in to cause some scuffing or keep the ball off the deck to maximise the shine on the ball.
Using foreign objects is a completely different level.
-
-
@booboo said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@virgil must be big news to bump a random crocodile story off the front page of the NT News.
We loves the NT News.
Love a bit of thai castle too
-
@barbarian said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
Well there is ball tampering and there is ball tampering.
The laws of the game permit you to tamper with the ball by shining it on your pants. That helps the ball to swing, giving your side an advantage. So it's not like this is a black and white issue.
What about deliberately scuffing the ball by bouncing the ball as you throw it to the keeper? Technically legal, but is it ethical? Certainly it's hard to police.
All the players you listed have certainly partaken in ball tampering of some description. But the line is very hard to define here, because some of it is legal.
Everyone knows this crosses the line, though.
Thanks for that, given how difficult it is to police should any amount of tampering be allowed? Or does the tampering simply make the game more interesting?
-
@chimoaus said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@barbarian said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
Well there is ball tampering and there is ball tampering.
The laws of the game permit you to tamper with the ball by shining it on your pants. That helps the ball to swing, giving your side an advantage. So it's not like this is a black and white issue.
What about deliberately scuffing the ball by bouncing the ball as you throw it to the keeper? Technically legal, but is it ethical? Certainly it's hard to police.
All the players you listed have certainly partaken in ball tampering of some description. But the line is very hard to define here, because some of it is legal.
Everyone knows this crosses the line, though.
Thanks for that, given how difficult it is to police should any amount of tampering be allowed? Or does the tampering simply make the game more interesting?
Well yeah that in itself opens a bit of a cab of worms.....How much advantage does it give? I'm a bit of a burly left armed but I doubt tampering with the ball is gonna make me Mitchell Johnson overnight.
-
@barbarian said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
They were too brazen, too stupid and they got caught.
Only reason this post got 7 likes so far
-
@chimoaus said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
Thanks for that, given how difficult it is to police should any amount of tampering be allowed? Or does the tampering simply make the game more interesting?
Outlawing it completely isn't really an option, purely because the ball naturally picks up dirt/grass during the game and a bowler sometimes has to clean that off to deliver a ball. Policing that seems overly officious.
I think you could make a pretty strong case to legalise ball tampering, on the proviso that players can't use any implements or tools to physically aid them. So you can scuff it, scratch it with your nails, throw it into the turf, suck on mints and shine it etc etc
That's probably a better outcome than prohibition, and easier to police.
-
@bovidae said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@barbarian said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
Well there is ball tampering and there is ball tampering.
I was going to say the same thing regarding throws to the keeper. Players know when they want to bounce the ball in to cause some scuffing or keep the ball off the deck to maximise the shine on the ball.
Using foreign objects is a completely different level.
That is already outlawed now though, tightened up on in the last few years - deliberately throwing it into the ground on the way back to the keeper. But this is only really applied to an infielder throwing it in deliberately on the bounce. Not boundary-riders.
Personally think that ruling is a bit stupid. If a team want to scuff it up by letting it bounce I don't care much. Surely this in itself takes some skill (and risk if it also scuffs the shiny side)?
It has to be pretty blatant for an ump to call on this.
