Lets imagine this current affair develops into a court battle (I sincerely hope it does) and the judge asks for a definition, what would Darryl Hairs excuse be?
My understanding is that the ball when new is given to the bowling team and they are not allowed to alter anything from its natural state. It will hit the bat and become mis-shapen, roll on the grass and gather dirt and moisture, hit the edge of the bat and the advertising hoardings and acquire dents and nicks etc..
So then every bowler in the world who rubs the shine off the ball on their trousers, and puts on sweat and saliva and rubs it again, is ball tampering.
So the argument is about degrees of tampering, but I believe a court would accept that any artificial attempt to change the state of the ball is tampering. No doubt the supporters of racist buffoon Hair will have millions of excuses, what does everyone think?
2006-08-22
09:45:32
·
11 answers
·
asked by
vaivagabundo
5