Scrap ball-tampering law - Woolmer

[andrew_nixon]

Bob Woolmer thinks that the ball tampering law should be scrapped.

"The whole irony and tragedy of this particular story is law 42.3," he told The Guardian newspaper. "But law 42.3 is an ass. It was brought in because of ball-tampering with razor blades and bottle tops and everything else in the past, but that's been shoved out of the game now. I'd scrub out the law completely."

Woolmer backed his players and insisted that they had done nothing illegal at The Oval, adding that he'd held these views earlier as well. "I'd allow bowlers to use anything that naturally appears on the cricket field," Woolmer continued. "They could rub the ball on the ground, pick the seam, scratch it with their nails - anything that allows the ball to move off the seam to make it less of a batsman's game.

"It should be looked at seriously by the MCC's laws committee. Every single bowler I know from the time I played in 1968 to 1984 was guilty, at least under the current law, of some sort of ball-changing. If you haven't played the game, like a lot of the umpires haven't, they don't know these things. The more laws you make to try to stop it being done, the more the players go the other way. It's like prohibition: the more you ban alcohol, the more it goes underground. They really need to open it up in my opinion."

Seems like damage-limitation from the Afridi interview to me.

He also said that he didn't have a problem with Duncan Fletcher visiting Mike Proctor on the fourth morning, pointing out that they played together for Rhodesia in the 70s.

"He might well have gone there and said, 'hello, good morning, how's your wife?' He may well also have gone in and said, 'watch out, they're tampering with the ball.' I don't think I can stop him from doing that. I think possibly I would have done the same thing. I should also point out that I spend a lot of time watching the England players through binoculars too."

Sourced from: http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/257514.html

 

[sohum]

Hmm..... I don't like the way this is heading

 

[embi]

The second part about Duncan Fletcher is good. It shows that the relationship between the two teams is not getting that much worse. However, the first bit, as Andrew said, is definitely damage limitation.
I don't agree with scrapping the law, as I've said before bowlers need to come up with new ways to fool batsmen on increasingly batsman-friendly pitches.

 

[James219]

I can understand where he's coming from, even though it's quite clearly a measure to reduce the consequence of Afridi's interview and the scandal at hand, but it would grow to the point where it becomes an absolute farce......i.e. balls being picked so rigorously that holes begin to form, seams fall of, etc....not a good look for a sport to bear.

 

[sohum]

The second part about Duncan Fletcher is good. It shows that the relationship between the two teams is not getting that much worse. However, the first bit, as Andrew said, is definitely damage limitation.
I don't agree with scrapping the law, as I've said before bowlers need to come up with new ways to fool batsmen on increasingly batsman-friendly pitches.

I found the part about Duncan Fletcher a little sarcastic.

 

[Sureshot]

How about an alteration of the law.

No team/player can be accused of ball tampering without a clear eye-witness account of it by one of the 2 onfield umpires or 2 off field umpires.

Or maybe the ICC should ask all broadcasting companies to have a camera trained on the ball at all times for later reference.

 

[sohum]

How about an alteration of the law.

No team/player can be accused of ball tampering without a clear eye-witness account of it by one of the 2 onfield umpires or 2 off field umpires.

Or maybe the ICC should ask all broadcasting companies to have a camera trained on the ball at all times for later reference.

I prefer the way this sounds. Because it allows for changing the condition of the ball with regards to what is permitted currently (spit/sweat/etc.) and it also will reduce the fiasco that was the 4th test. I wonder if the ICC would do anything like that--they'd probably leave it for discussion at their AGM, where it wouldn't really be as passionate a topic.