Cricket

You are reading a single comment by @owl and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

BRM

I don't agree with your classification of this as 'arrogance and competitiveness'

Agree with this - let's call it what it is: cheating.

However, to suggest that: a) it's only bad because it is a foreign object, and/or b) that this is the only case, is pretty naive or only seeing the way you want to see it. mints? bottle tops? dirt? zippers? suncream? all foreign objects.

But, I also take @BRM's point below that the impact of the tampering may be being overstated but in the context of a close game one key wicket because of greater-than-expected reverse swing could be enormous. And we have to assume that if they were doing it, they were expecting some sort of result/benefit.

a 4-0 thrashing!!! there has not been a closer series in modern times than the 2005 ashes series and WE KNOW the english players cheated. they admitted it!

see the double standards?

*not meant to be personal, btw

•

owl in reply to @BRM

Ha, no-one should be taking the internets as personal...

I may be alone in this, but I am drawing a distinction between things that should/could be on the field anyway (zippers, suncream, boot studs, mints, fingernails, teeth etc) and things that are intentionally smuggled onto the field with the expressed intention of cheating (bottle top, sandpaper, potentially athers' pocket full of dirt) - the former seems like bending the rules (i.e. the ball could come into contact with all such things accidentally, this is just being encouraged/exploited), the latter seems far more calculated, malignant and worthy of stronger sanction.

If anyone is seriously arguing that using minty saliva and bringing a fucking implement of DIY abrasion onto the pitch should be considered equivalent then we have very different perspectives and should probably agree to disagree...

About

Avatar for owl @owl started