Comments on: Fourth test forfeit farce

By: FDB

FDB — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:37:18 +0000

Gold star for the sub-editor there. That’s just brilliant.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:21:05 +0000

As someone who watches cricket only when I have absolutely no say in the matter, this has been a mildly entertaining dispute. It's certainly led to one of the best headlines I've seen in a while:

PM hopes for pacific solution to tamper crisis

By: Brian B

Brian B — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:29:26 +0000

All that being said, I did hear that Hair had been a fast bowler himself so presumably he’s familiar with all that stuff.

It’s not as though he hasn’t seen a cricket ball that’s being belted around before, or polished, or whatever.

By: Yobbo

Yobbo — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:10:34 +0000

A lot of comments here from people who have obviously never played cricket.

My argument is that if the ball was consistently being hit into the stands/advertising then chances are that both sides should be banged up.

Not really. For one thing, the only part roughed up would be the face of the ball that impacts the concrete/metal. If this happens 4-5 times, it’s not too unusual for it to be on the same side each time. Besides, the type of damage we are talking about doesn’t happen EVERY TIME a boundary is hit, it is the sort of thing that happens every so often when the cricket ball hits something hard or sharp in a certain way.

Secondly, the fielding team will be shining one side of the ball and not the other (which is legal), which will mean that even if both sides are equally roughed up during play, they won’t both remain roughed up.

By: Bring Back EP

Bring Back EP — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:51:33 +0000

the ball was hit into the stands ( by Pieterson) AFTER the ball was changed.

The Umpires do NOT need to observe the ball being damaged merely view a ball that has been damaged obviously.

By: James Dudek

James Dudek — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:22:07 +0000

BBEP – I’m aware that the point is to rough up one side of the ball.

My argument is that if the ball was consistently being hit into the stands/advertising then chances are that both sides should be banged up. Thus Yobbo’s argument that the umpires mistook a tampered with ball for one that had just taken a shelacking would probably be wrong.

By: Bring Back EP

Bring Back EP — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:36:57 +0000

Jaems,
reverse swing has more to do with scuffing or roughing up one side of the ball whilst the other remains shiny.

Oictures of the said ball confirm it had been roughed up.

By: Black Knight

Black Knight — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:17:33 +0000

‘Dickhead’?

That the best you can do?

I’m not surprised, given your evidenced level of (il)literacy. Bah, I’m too short for this shit.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:10:41 +0000

What are the chances that if the ball went into the advertising or into the stands that only one side of the ball would get scuffed up?

50%, give or take?

By: Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:27:03 +0000

Yobbo rants:

instead relying on the Tim Lambert defense âhe made an error once, so everything else he says is wrong forever.â?

Spoiling for a fight are you, Yobbo?

When I have I ever said anything of the sort?