ya1180
If you ask me i will say-
yes, he was unethical. A player of world class using a mere ball in his gloves proves that he was not self confident and didn’t believe in himself.though he had it in his gloves for grip,it was unethical.I remember a controversy similar to this when media started publishing clips telling that Australian skipper Ricky pointing used some kind of spring in his bat in 2003 world cup finals against India.
This also kindles me a suspicion that Australians win all game through some of cheating.
THE WHOLE STORY:
May 1 Two days after Adam Gilchrist’s slaughter
of the lambs in the World Cup final, cricket’s fans
and fanatics are still coming to terms with the
onslaught that fetched 149 off just 103 balls and
took the truncated game away from the Lankans
even before they began their reply.
But, how legal was the wicket keeper’s innings?
And, as a direct corollary, therefore, how
authentic was Australia’s ‘Cup triumph’?
Bloggers especially churmuri.com have raised
this pertinent question.
By Gilchrist’s own admission, he had ’something’
in his left glove all through his knock. In fact,
upon reaching the century, Gilchrist first doffed
his bat towards his teammates in the pavilion,
acknowledged the applause of the spectators, and
then kept repeatedly pointing to his left batting
glove with his right hand.
‘I had a little message, to wave to someone at
home in Australia about something in my glove,’
he is quoted as saying at the post-match media
conference.
The intended recipient of that little message was
his batting coach and former Western Australia
player Bob Meuleman, also a noted squash
player. Turns out that upon Meuleman ’s advice,
Gilchrist had been carrying a squash ball in his
left, bottom hand to help him with his grip.
‘His (Meuleman’s) last words to me before I left
the indoor training centre where I train with him
in Perth were, ‘Well, if you are going to use it
(squash ball), make sure when you score a
hundred in the final you show me and prove to
me you got it in there’. I had stayed true to that.’
That’s as clear a confirmation that Gilchrist had
the squash ball in his left glove to help him with
his grip during his stupendous knock. But that’s
also where questions over the legality of
Gilchrist’s innings, or the seeming lack of it,
come in.
Can a batsman carry an object – in this case, a
squash ball not connected with cricket – to help
him on the field? Did he secure the prior
permission of the umpires? Was the fielding side
captain aware of the use of the squash ball? Did
Mahela Jayawardene approve its use?
And, above all, and in a manner of speaking, did
Gilchrist’s ‘hidden ball’ give him an unfair
advantage in knocking the daylights out of the
Lankan bowlers?
These are hypothetical questions, of course, but
cricket – a sport governed by mighty laws not
lowly rules – is always full of ifs and buts that
leaves cricket haters plain mystified but keeps
cricket lovers breathlessly debating the whys and
wherefores till kingdom come.
A quick recap of cricketing laws shows that
Gilchrist’s squash ball was, therefore, neither a
piece of protective equipment, nor clothing item
and was most certainly not visible to either side
or the umpires.
The law specifically prohibits a player from using
equipment other than that permitted. And
nowhere in cricket’s 42 laws is there a mention of
a squash ball as a permitted item.
If Dennis Lilee’s aluminium bat and Ricky
Ponting’s graphite-coated bat could be deemed
illegal, if Hansie Cronje’s earpiece experiment
was not OK, if Scott Styris had to remove all the
bandage from his right hand before he could
bowl in the super eight match, can Adam
Gilchrist’s ‘hidden ball’ pass muster?
No law can, of course, take the sheen away from
Gilchrist’s knock. Batting with a normal grip
against the world’s best bowlers is tough enough,
batting with a squash ball in one of your gloves is
worse. To score 149 scintillating runs is, well,
incredible.
Still, two questions arise: If using a squash ball
isn’t ok as per the laws of the game, is his innings
legal and does it count? And if it doesn’t count,
can Australia claim to have won a hopelessly one-
sided and farcical victory?
