Did Gilchrist really score 149? - Letter to ICC

[rapa]

The President
The International Cricket Council
World Cup Tournament
P.O. Box 5000/70
Dubai,
United Arab Emirates


Dear Sir,

Subject: 2007 World Cup winners -Australian Cricket Team be
Disqualified and the Sri Lanka Cricket Team be declared
as the winners, because Adam Gilchrist admits concealing
a performance enhancing device, inside his bottom hand
glove a squash ball.

Adam Gilchrist, the opening batsman for Australia admits to the correspondent, Bridgetown, Saturday, AFP of using a squash ball concealed inside his bottom hand glove, a performance enhancing device, to catapult the cricket ball. Using a squash ball enclosed inside the glove is considered as an illegal practice, resulting in catapulting and/or catastrophic consequences, thereby assisting Gilchrist to accumulate an induced score of 149 runs in the one day cricket finals at Barbados.

The Laws of Cricket 2000 Code 2 Ed. 2003: The Preamble to the Laws- specifically states that “the game of Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that; it should be played not only within the rules, but also with the spirit of the game. Any action thereof, that is seen to abuse this spirit cause injury to the game itself. The major responsibility of ensuring the spirit of fair-play rests with the Captain”.

Based on the information related above, the opening batsmen Adam Gilchrist used a performance enhancing device in his bottom hand glove, a squash ball, challenging not only within its laws of Cricket, but also within the ‘spirit of the game’. Any action which is seen to abuse the spirit causes injury to the game itself. Based on the Preamble, the Australian Cricket Team should be disqualified for the illegal practice of concealing a squash ball in the glove, a performance enhancing device. In lieu, the Sri Lankan Cricket Team be re-awarded the Cricket World Cup 2007.

The Captain was aware of the fact that Adam Gilchrist did practice wearing the spring loaded squash ball, concealed in the glove, a prohibitive exercise, with his friend, a squash player - Bob Meuleman, Western Australian Cricketer. So, the Captain in the ‘Spirit of the Cricket Game’, should have brought it to the notice of the

Umpires, and obtained prior approval, before the Cricket game got started. Therefore it is pertinent that the ICC Committee take disciplinary action against both Gilchrist and the Captain-as they are jointly and severely guilty of the illegal device that was employed, and should be suspended for life. Furthermore, the Australian Cricket Team be disqualified from the World Cricket Cup 2007, and the cup be re-awarded to the Sri Lankan Cricket Team.

The characteristic of the squash ball indicates that the ball is made of vulcanised rubber with additions of polymers and synthetic material to achieve a degree of fairly low resilience. The lower the resilience of the object the higher the proportion of energy used in deforming it. Thus when a batsmen hits the cricket ball, the air inside the squash ball gets pressurised or deformed, releasing a spring load of energy, that is transferred directly to the bat, resulting in a catapulting effect on the cricket ball, as evidenced by the spectators, watching Gilchrist’s batting spell bound.

In this context, it is evident that wearing a performance enhancing device (Squash ball) is prohibitive against the ‘Spirit of the Cricket Game’ and is analogous to an Athlete using performance enhancing drugs to win his event. Furthermore, the Australian Cricket Team should be disqualified from the World Cup 2007 and in lieu Sri Lankan Cricket Team be re-awarded the World Cup 2007

Laws’ the Bat: It defines that the bat should be made solely of wood and the hand and glove be part of the bat The specification of the glove is not defined, but it is prohibitive to enclose a performance enhancing device in the glove. Tampering the glove is synonymous to the tampering of the cricket ball, thus the practice is not allowed/acceptable. Moreover, it is explicit that no outside appliance/device can be introduced into the glove; more specifically a spring loaded device as evidenced in the squash ball and is prohibitive.

In conclusion, I write with a firm hand that the ICC conduct disciplinary hearings and the 2007 World Cricket Cup re-awarded to the Sri Lankan Cricket Club and a decision that both Adam Gilchrist and the Australian Captain be banned for Life.

In the event I do not hear from you, Legal Action will be meted against the ICC.

Soliciting your assistance,

Yours sincerely,



R. George Manuelpillai
A cricketer and an enthusiast .from Sri Lanka



CC: 1. The President – MMC – I would appreciate the views from your office, and
your actions with the ICC and the Australian Cricket Board..
2. The 16 Cricket Teams – Please be reminded that Adam Gilchrist did admit to
concealing a squash ball in his glove. What assurance is there that other
Australian Cricketers too may have used the same technique in recording big
scores in the tournament just concluded? I suggest that in the ‘Spirit of the
Cricket Game’ that all the teams that did loose their matches to the Australian
Team should take legal action individually or in unison against the ICC and/or
the Australian board, for the use of a Performance Enhancing Device, a
catapulting effect to register big scores

[northtech]

Ithin Meka Balala Thiranaya Wenas Karay Da ???? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[diz]

stupid aussi

[rapa]

Ithin Meka Balala Thiranaya Wenas Karay Da ???? :confused: :confused: :confused:
mahathwarunge kreedawane :lol:
mennam kiyala wenas karai

[rapa]

stupid aussi
but dn't tell anyone :lol:

[crazy_m]

V should all sign on this letter & send it back....v should get thousands of signatures on it so that they can't ignore it!!!Bloody Aussi idiots!!!:angry:

[nukisl]

pissu tamai

[fazaal24]

repost ne...its kk

[rapa]

Sri Lanka Cricket officials are to raise with the International Cricket Council Australian Adam Gilchrist's use of a squash ball in his left glove in the World Cup final.
Gilchrist used the squash ball when he smashed 149 in a match his match-winning innings.
"We don't think he did anything illegal but we question whether it was unethical or within the spirit of the game," cricket board secretary Kangadaran Mathivanan told Reuters.
"We plan to raise the issue with the ICC in June so that there can be a discussion as to whether using an object inside the glove should be permitted or not," he added.
Gilchrist used the squash call after advice from his coach Bob Meuleman, who believed it would help him with his grip.

[nimaz]

its all over..!!! and theres no pont talking abt this anymore!!
hopefully we will get da worldcup next tym!!

[rapa]

its all over..!!! and theres no pont talking abt this anymore!!
hopefully we will get da worldcup next tym!!
not over see below

http://bp0.blogger.com/_VFnTUjTu4T0/RkBl9QSB_7I/AAAAAAAAAHk/wNNDbZAG9cs/s320/murali_hair.jpg (http://bp0.blogger.com/_VFnTUjTu4T0/RkBl9QSB_7I/AAAAAAAAAHk/wNNDbZAG9cs/s1600-h/murali_hair.jpg)

As the "squash ball controversy" is heating up the cricket world phenomenally, some Aussies are rubbing some old wounds (http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/how-legal-was-adam-gilchrists-hidden-ball/#comment-32457)by dragging in the Murali-Hair controversy into this. Some Aussies with extraordinary loss of "short medium term memory", are accusing "ICC changed the rules of throwing, to accommodate Murali's action (http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/how-legal-was-adam-gilchrists-hidden-ball/#comment-32888)". And they further accuse, ICC did this under the pressure from Sri Lanka (http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/how-legal-was-adam-gilchrists-hidden-ball/#comment-33092)and the Sub Continent.

It's really amazing to see how these people tend to forget the facts so quickly. Some one has to speak up and remind these people the facts they try to forget.





History of The Issue

Let's just go back to the history. At the time of Murali-Hair affair took place in 1995, it was the duty of on-field umpires to judge a delivery as illegal or "thrown" on with visual judgment alone. The accepted way of doing this was, the square leg umpire to watch the bowlers arm and make the judgment. Because the head umpire (standing behind the non-strikers wicket) is assigned with a duty to watching the bowlers front leg for over stepping, at the point of ball leaving the bowlers hand. No human being could watch a bowlers front leg, and the elbow positioning of the bowler, at a same instance when the ball is delivered.

But Australian umpire Darrel Hair did that miracle. He re-written the history book, as the first umpire in the history of cricket, to call a bowler for throwing while standing in the head umpire's position. So, it was very clear that Mr. Hair was deliberate of calling Murali for throwing, and therefore he forgot that "throwing" should be called by the square leg umpire.

This issue was raised before the ICC by the Sri Lanka Cricket Board, and ICC demanded an investigation into Murali's action. In an biomechanical test done with Murali's hand, it was revealed that his elbow had an unusual tilt at his birth. This tilt, would have actually helped Murali in turning the ball, but it was nothing purposely adjusted by Murali.

Biomechanical Test in 2004 ICC Champions Trophy

With the topic of "throwing" becoming a hot topic in Cricket World, during late 90's, ICC conducted a biomechanical test, using sophisticated technology. And, in those tests it was discovered that it is virtually impossible for the human arm to legally "bowl" the ball without any flex of the elbow, more than 15 degrees. The old law allowed to bend the elbow 10 degrees for fast bowlers, 7.5 degrees for medium pacers , and 5 degrees for spin bowlers. Thus according to the old laws, "legal" bowling would be practically impossible for any human being, so some thing had to be done.

After the Muralitharan issue, the ICC carried out a test on all bowlers through video footage during the 2004 Champions Trophy in England. The test brought up some startling results: ninety-nine percent of all bowlers tested were found to flex their elbow to some degree, which was often much greater than the limit set at the time. According to this test, all the Australian bowlers in 2004 Champions Trophy were also chuckers. Looking at some of the old video footages of some great Australian fast bowlers in the past, it was revealed that all of them were chuckers according to this old law.

Change of Rules

It was realized that 99% of the modern day bowlers are chuckers, under the old law of "throwing". So, what can ICC do? Ban all the bowlers? Including Shane Warne, McGrath and Shaun Pollock? The only way forward for ICC was to change the rules.

After a review by an expert panel, the ICC decided to raise the limit to 15 degrees for all bowlers. This limit was chosen as the ICC believed that any flexing of the elbow above 15 degrees would be visibly noticeable.

So, I guess this summarize the whole story. The arguments of some pathetic Australian fans are completely invalid. ICC did not changed the rules to accommodate Murali's action. They did change the rules, after they realized that the old rules were wrong, and it's humanly impossible to be abide by those rules (for 99% of the bowlers, to be precise. Including Shane Warne. Not only Murali).

[fazaal24]

hmm...its getting intresting nee

[rapa]

"MCC’s Laws Sub-Committee has issued a statement in which it concludes that “the incident could not be classed either as contravening the Law or as breaching the Spirit of the Game.”

The debate gone all over the internet to office trains now has to come to an end. There was a questionable grey areas in Gilly's act, so no one could possibly say Sri Lankans are "sore losers", for raising this issue. Now, that the "Guardians of the Laws of Cricket" saying that Adam Gilchrist haven't done anything wrong, we have to admit that.

"In this case (Adam Gilchrist in the ICC Cricket World Cup Final), apparently the addendum to the inside of the batting gloves was not for protection from injury, but to improve the way the batsman gripped the bat handle. This should not be considered unfair. Similarly, it has never been considered unfair for batsmen to use two grips on the bat handle."

http://www.lords.org/latest-news/news-archive/mcc-gilchrist-did-not-contravene-the-law-or-spirit-of-cricket,850,NS.html

[Hustle]

pal horu