" ball tempering"----do u consider it bigger hindrance in gentlemen's game than sledging?

Question

place these two issues on the beam balance of your mind and then answer.

Answer 1

Both are as bad I think. But most professional cricketers admit that all teams tamper , and they been doing it for many years! Sledging is ok as long as it is not racial and it is used just to get under the skin of the opposition!

Answer 2

Of course it is! Sledging is just a little bit of fun to get under the oppositions skin while on the field of play. Once players go into the pavillion, they are all chummy. Although there has been a few really bad cases, like when the slip cordon went: "Choo Choo!" because the batsman's wife had died in a train crash.

Ball Tampering is a different issue. It is noted in the laws while sledging is not. Ball tampering can cause the collapse of a whole batting side, and is one of the biggest offences in cricket. Although if there were no rules, and ball tampering was allowed, matches may be a whole lot shorter, and there would be even more outcry and tension between the teams. It is just like the "Protected area" rule. It adds excitement, but it will cause conflict and more farces. As we saw during the latest controversy, the issue brought cricket down to it's knees, and will still do while the rule exists.

Answer 3

If I wasn't answering this question in a certain context and climate of opinion, I would have said, "Yes, ball tamepering is more serious" period.

If a side has decided to tamper with the ball, they will do it surreptitiously to the maximum extent they think it is possble without getting caught. There can be no doubt that it is not only illegal but also that also is unethical and goes against the entire spirit of the game and of sport in general.

A side that has decided to tamper the ball has therefore made a deliberate choice to cheat. Presumably, if the same result could be achieved, without being found out, by feeding the opposing team so that they had stomach cramps, this team would be quite happy.

In all sports, there is an element of gamesmanship. Psychological tactics are used to "soften" opponents. So long as this is confined th fast bowlers painting nose and lips, or tennis stars wearing sexy apparel, it is within the bounds of acceptability. It is true, however, that Aussie cricketers are well known for hurling ethnic abuse on opponents. If it is an organised effort by the entire team it is a serious offence against Human Rights, but hardly a cricketing offence. As such it would be difficult for cricketing authorities to take action, but it is time the worst offenders are taken to courts under normal criminal law.

The context in which this question is asked is that in which Darrel Hair found the Pakistani team led by Inzamamum al Haq guilty of ball tampering.

Inzi received no warning. He was suddenly informed that he had been accused, tried and convicted by Darrel Hair. Imagine the thoughts running through Inzi's mind. The Pakis have been accused of this before, in matches involving Inzi, so he knows the seriousness of the charge. He knows Hair's history and also that his team's management had expressed reservations about Hair being selected as umpire. He would wonder whether the senior referee in the pavilion, Ranjan Madugalle, had been consulted by Hair or whether Madugalle could intervene. Madugalle is not only a brown man from the subcontinent like Inzi, but is also from Sri Lanka, where Hair is hated for the Muralitharan episode. The pressures on Inzi were great and his "incorrect" behaviour in not taking the field immeditely after tea is understandable.

Hair now thanks people for the solid support he has received. He ought to know it was more brickbats. Pray, how did he stand up to the pressure? By writing the most ridiculous letter to the ICC, asking for money but begging that it be kept secret. Now he is showing more poor strategy (nasty 'plotty' word), apologising and asking forgivenss, thus admitting he did wrong. Has the ICC got limitless wealth? I'm sure Hair didn't pause to consider that ICC money comes from member countries. In some his half a million dollars would support a village of fifty families for twent years.

The crux of the matter is that there was no chance for another person to go into this matter. Steve Doctrove hardly matters. He has a few skeletons in his own cupboard and the fact is that the black man cannot usually stand upto the white (let me emphasise the importance of context once more), and the pictures show Hair towering over Doctrove. Ha! ... gamesmanship?

What did Hair have to do? Umpire a match played by 22 cricketers. How come he wanted to be the star?

Answer 4

Ball tampering is definitely worst than the sledging in all respects

Answer 5

Of course it is. Ball tampering is cheating and sledging is a part of the game. Trying to unhinge a batsman is just another part of getting him/her out.....its fun too

Answer 6

Ball tempering is just a way to punish the players the umpires dont like.

Answer 7

Well its a biiger hindrance. Inzi should have not left the ground. its his first mistake which reflects that he has tempered the ball. as its not a big mistake but the thing matter is y did he left the ground.

Answer 8

Yes.... bcoz it is cheating... any game should be played within the rules of the sport

Answer 9

YES