FootballNews

Can/do batsmen add substances to their bat to help take the shine off the ball?

Bomber wrote:Faf, I understand the mint thing is a bit of a storm in a teacup, but tv shows you clearly using it to shine the pill and the ICC found you guilty. How you can try and appeal your match fee now is quite laughable. Hansie Cronje had more credibility!

Because the TV evidence doesn't show that at all. It shows a mint in his mouth and it shows him using his saliva to shine the ball. I hope no aussie fielders chew any gum whilst on the field in the next test.

What next, fielders aren't allowed a sandwich at lunch, Gatorade in the drinks break or even to brush their teeth in the morning?

What this is all about, is deflecting attention away from Australia's poor performances in the 1st & 2nd tests!

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Faf, I understand the mint thing is a bit of a storm in a teacup, but tv shows you clearly using it to shine the pill and the ICC found you guilty. How you can try and appeal your match fee now is quite laughable. Hansie Cronje had more credibility!

Because the TV evidence doesn't show that at all. It shows a mint in his mouth and it shows him using his saliva to shine the ball. I hope no aussie fielders chew any gum whilst on the field in the next test.

What next, fielders aren't allowed a sandwich at lunch, Gatorade in the drinks break or even to brush their teeth in the morning?

Why was he cited then? And remember, no Aussie made any complaint, it was the ICC.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Faf, I understand the mint thing is a bit of a storm in a teacup, but tv shows you clearly using it to shine the pill and the ICC found you guilty. How you can try and appeal your match fee now is quite laughable. Hansie Cronje had more credibility!

Because the TV evidence doesn't show that at all. It shows a mint in his mouth and it shows him using his saliva to shine the ball. I hope no aussie fielders chew any gum whilst on the field in the next test.

What next, fielders aren't allowed a sandwich at lunch, Gatorade in the drinks break or even to brush their teeth in the morning?

Why was he cited then? And remember, no Aussie made any complaint, it was the ICC.

Who made the complaint is irrelevant. It was highlighted by an aussie media company though.

I don't know why he was cited, I think the ICC have made a rod for their own back here. Anyone chewing gum is now up for a ball tampering charge if they touch the ball.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote: Because the TV evidence doesn't show that at all. It shows a mint in his mouth and it shows him using his saliva to shine the ball. I hope no aussie fielders chew any gum whilst on the field in the next test.

What next, fielders aren't allowed a sandwich at lunch, Gatorade in the drinks break or even to brush their teeth in the morning?

Why was he cited then? And remember, no Aussie made any complaint, it was the ICC.

Who made the complaint is irrelevant. It was highlighted by an aussie media company though.

I don't know why he was cited, I think the ICC have made a rod for their own back here. Anyone chewing gum is now up for a ball tampering charge if they touch the ball.

How dare the media cover something in the news in their own country!!!

Slinky_Pete wrote:How dare the media cover something in the news in their own country!!!

Slinky_Pete wrote:How dare the media cover something in the news in their own country!!!

Why did they feel the need to cover it? Did they cover Warner with his chewing gum?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Slinky_Pete wrote:How dare the media cover something in the news in their own country!!!

Why did they feel the need to cover it? Did they cover Warner with his chewing gum?

Did Warner's gum get cited by the ICC?

Slinky_Pete wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Slinky_Pete wrote:How dare the media cover something in the news in their own country!!!

Why did they feel the need to cover it? Did they cover Warner with his chewing gum?

Did Warner's gum get cited by the ICC?

Strangely no, Channel 9 showed coverage of Faf's mint before the ICC charge though. Maybe Warner's gum will be shown in this test.

Isn't rubbing the ball on players clothing to make it shiny on one side of it a form of ball tampering

Really its a storm in tea cup to me and doesn't deserve a fine that cost a player thousands of dollars. It could open a can of warms as it sets a precedent for others in other similar situations.

Mr Red wrote:Isn't rubbing the ball on players clothing to make it shiny on one side of it a form of ball tampering

Good point. I never thought of tha although when it broke I did think of Rory De Lap having towels on the sidelines to wipe the ball before his throw ins.

Mr Red wrote:Isn't rubbing the ball on players clothing to make it shiny on one side of it a form of ball tampering

Really its a storm in tea cup to me and doesn't deserve a fine that cost a player thousands of dollars. It could open a can of warms as it sets a precedent for others in other similar situations.

That has been my point all along. Steve Smith has said that all teams do it. Doesn't make it right, but it's true. As Amla said, it opens up a can of worms now as MANY players chew gum while they are playing. If they touch the ball now, they could be brought up on ball tampering charges.

As for players clothing, it would be defined as a "natural substance" and therefore allowed. Saliva and sweat are allowed as well, just apparently not saliva that has been chewing a mint.

Why people need to chew or suck mints whilst playing sport is a bit silly anyway. They have enough drinks/eat breaks.

Bomber wrote:Why people need to chew or suck mints whilst playing sport is a bit silly anyway. They have enough drinks/eat breaks.

Drinks breaks should be banned as well, someone might have water (or even worse some Gatorade) and then use that saliva to polish the ball.

Fingers crossed this test lasts at least 4 days.............

Bomber wrote:Fingers crossed this test lasts at least 4 days.............

yep especially if you have day 4 tickets - do you get a refund if it doesn't happen?

Mr Red wrote:

Bomber wrote:Fingers crossed this test lasts at least 4 days.............

yep especially if you have day 4 tickets - do you get a refund if it doesn't happen?

As I understand as long as there is no play , you should be refunded, certainly have one in England for test matches.

Mr Red wrote:

Bomber wrote:Fingers crossed this test lasts at least 4 days.............

yep especially if you have day 4 tickets - do you get a refund if it doesn't happen?

If there is no play then you are entitled to a full refund of the ticket price, if there's under 20 overs bowled I believe you are entitled to percentage refund.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Mr Red wrote:

Bomber wrote:Fingers crossed this test lasts at least 4 days.............

yep especially if you have day 4 tickets - do you get a refund if it doesn't happen?

If there is no play then you are entitled to a full refund of the ticket price, if there's under 20 overs bowled I believe you are entitled to percentage refund.

umm ok sounds reasonable.

Channel 7 this morning called Faf's declaration a disgrace and against the spirit of the game

Channel 9 last night said Faf was embroiled in controversy again


I am more than happy to admit this is the media because everyone I have spoken to said it was a brilliant piece of captaincy.

Amusing to see last night that there was more Englishman on the pitch than Australians. Then again, there wasn't a single Australian on the pitch for quite a few overs.

God is an Englishman wrote:Channel 7 this morning called Faf's declaration a disgrace and against the spirit of the game

Channel 9 last night said Faf was embroiled in controversy again


I am more than happy to admit this is the media because everyone I have spoken to said it was a brilliant piece of captaincy.

Australia carried on about having a day/night test and eventually got their way. South Africa are just playing ball. No complaints here.

God Tongue wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Channel 7 this morning called Faf's declaration a disgrace and against the spirit of the game

Channel 9 last night said Faf was embroiled in controversy again


I am more than happy to admit this is the media because everyone I have spoken to said it was a brilliant piece of captaincy.

Australia carried on about having a day/night test and eventually got their way. South Africa are just playing ball. No complaints here.

I don't really think anyone except the media is complaining to be fair

God is an Englishman wrote:Channel 7 this morning called Faf's declaration a disgrace and against the spirit of the game

Channel 9 last night said Faf was embroiled in controversy again


I am more than happy to admit this is the media because everyone I have spoken to said it was a brilliant piece of captaincy.

Seemed the commentators were glowing of it last night.

Good move to send in the batters (even if the Warner thing didn't happen) late with the swinging pink ball.

The media there (and I assume morning TV shows) just want a contrary viewpoint.

Slinky_Pete wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Channel 7 this morning called Faf's declaration a disgrace and against the spirit of the game

Channel 9 last night said Faf was embroiled in controversy again


I am more than happy to admit this is the media because everyone I have spoken to said it was a brilliant piece of captaincy.

Seemed the commentators were glowing of it last night.

Good move to send in the batters (even if the Warner thing didn't happen) late with the swinging pink ball.

The media there (and I assume morning TV shows) just want a contrary viewpoint.

Channel 9 news came on straight after the cricket last night calling it a disgrace and controversial. As you said, those in the know thought it was a brilliant piece of captaincy.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Mr Red wrote:

Bomber wrote:Fingers crossed this test lasts at least 4 days.............

yep especially if you have day 4 tickets - do you get a refund if it doesn't happen?

If there is no play then you are entitled to a full refund of the ticket price, if there's under 20 overs bowled I believe you are entitled to percentage refund.

No refunds applicable - have corporate box lined up for that day - hence I hope it lasts that long!

God is an Englishman wrote:

Slinky_Pete wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Channel 7 this morning called Faf's declaration a disgrace and against the spirit of the game

Channel 9 last night said Faf was embroiled in controversy again


I am more than happy to admit this is the media because everyone I have spoken to said it was a brilliant piece of captaincy.

Seemed the commentators were glowing of it last night.

Good move to send in the batters (even if the Warner thing didn't happen) late with the swinging pink ball.

The media there (and I assume morning TV shows) just want a contrary viewpoint.

Channel 9 news came on straight after the cricket last night calling it a disgrace and controversial. As you said, those in the know thought it was a brilliant piece of captaincy.

I'm not sure it was as good as some thought. Warner was likely to have a dash and risk getting out for a few quick runs, whereas the situation really demanded someone hang around and not lose a wicket. The two out there did just that.

2/78 or 78/2 Renshaw was a close one :?

Bomber wrote:I'm not sure it was as good as some thought. Warner was likely to have a dash and risk getting out for a few quick runs, whereas the situation really demanded someone hang around and not lose a wicket. The two out there did just that.

It was about making them feel uncomfortable, that was achieved. However, australia responded well.