Postcard Not Posted

Gilchrist and his invisible hand

2007-05-09T22:55:00.000+00:00

The MCC Law Sub-committee has issued a statement exonerating Adam Gilchrist of contravening the laws or breaching the spirit of the game, when he batted against Sri Lanka in the World Cup final with a squash ball stuffed inside his glove.

The MCC’s conclusion does not make sense – you may call it a nonsense - and cannot be sustained.

Never before has a batsman been known to have stuffed any material inside his gloves in the way Gilchrist did and the question whether Gilchrist’s action was legitimate cannot be answered in the negative by referring to the absence of a provision expressly proscribing its use. However, if one reads the relevant provisions of the Code it is clear that his action was not permitted, and was therefore illegitimate.

The Laws of Cricket (Code) is clear in requiring that the game is conducted strictly in accordance with the Laws and that “no player uses equipment other than that permitted by the Code”. This is clear from Law 3 (6) and the duty is cast on the umpires to ensure that this is enforced both “before the toss and during the match”.

Adam Gilchrist’s use of the squash ball raises the question whether he used “equipment other than that permitted” by the Code.

To understand what “equipment” meant one has to turn to Appendix D. Appendix D is the interpretation or the definition part of the Code. As far as a batsman’s equipment is concerned the Code defines it to mean “his bat … together with any external protective equipment that he is wearing.

“External protective equipment” is any visible item of apparel worn for protection against external blows. For a batsman, items permitted are a helmet, external leg guards (batting pads), batting gloves and, if visible, fore-arm guards.”

When Law 3 (6) is read in conjunction with Appendix D the following conclusions are inevitable.

1. A batsman cannot use any equipment other than that permitted by the Code.
2. Equipment that is permitted is his bat and external protective equipment.
3. The external protective equipment is any visible item of apparel he wears for his protection.
4. A squash ball is neither visible nor protective equipment and does not come within “equipment” as envisaged by the Code.

The MCC takes a different view. To quote:
"The Law specifies only what external protective equipment is permitted for particular players. The only item for which any specification is given is wicket-keeper’s gloves. Helmets, external leg guards (batting pads), batting gloves and forearm guards (if visible) are all listed as permitted for batsmen. None has any definition or prescription. Since there is no restriction in Law even on the external form of batting gloves, let alone the interior thereof, no Law has been breached.”
Contrary to what the MCC has stated, the Law is clear in its definition and prescription. Any item of equipment must not only be visible but also have a protective purpose.
A squash ball is not part of the glove and has no connection to the glove, howsoever you may define it, be it by reference to its exterior form or its interior.
The MCC’s conclusion that “there is no restriction in Law even on the external form of batting gloves, let alone the interior thereof” is a red herring and has no bearing to the issue whether the squash ball is permitted equipment.

What is interesting is that in the very next paragraph of the MCC statement it is confirmed that the “currently permitted equipment is limited to external items”.
The MCC makes the argument that players wear chest protectors without it being considered unfair even though no reference is made to them in Appendix D and that the authorities could indeed be held responsible if such items were banned and serious injury were to occur.
There is no equivalence between a chest protector and a squash ball. A chest protector is not only visible but also has a protective function. The squash ball would be neither visible nor serve to protect a batsman’s person.
But what takes the cake is the MCC’s view that the incorporation of additional material inside a glove that is not meant for protection from injury, “but to improve the way the batsman gripped the bat handle” is not unfair in the same way it is not unfair to use two grips on the bat handle.

There can be no comparison between the grips on a bat handle and a squash ball hiding inside a glove. The grips are an external and visible part of the bat. The problem with an item that is not visible but concealed is that it makes it impossible for an umpire to satisfy himself whether it is legitimate equipment permitted by the Code.

Salim Durrani

2007-05-07T19:48:00.000+00:00

Salim Durrani was one of the most exciting players that ever played the game. He broke into the scene at a time when there were too many plodders and the game dull to watch. He made cricket exciting to watch and would have been ideally suited to the present dame game, especially the one day variety.

He combined film star looks with a charismatic personality and the crowd adored him wherever he played. A big hitter with a cavalier attitude, he would usually arrive at the crease to shouts of “sixers” and deliver them on demand. In trying to please he would often throw his wicket away. He played at a time when cricket had not yet attracted the money that is part and parcel of today’s game and it could be said of him that he played neither for the record book nor for the money. No wonder he was the darling of the crowd.

Durrani was a class act. He could have been one of the greatest all-rounders in the history of Indian cricket if he had enjoyed the same playing opportunities that the likes of Kapil Dev had. Indeed there were some who considered him to be the greatest all rounder ever who played for India, and even compared him to the great Gary Sobers, although he himself disagreed.

To those who saw him play he would remain as one of the greatest underachievers of the game.

Nawab of Pataudi

2007-05-05T17:47:00.000+00:00

The Prince among Cricketers

The Nawab of Pataudi is one of the finest cricketers to have graced the game of cricket. His achievements are all the more remarkable given that for the better part of his career he played with an impaired right eye caused by a car accident he suffered during his Oxford days. A glass splinter from a broken window damaged the lens on his right eye. Undeterred by the handicap, he batted with his right eye covered by his cap pulled down to an almost rakish angle. He would later say that he was afraid of getting injured when batting against fast bowlers but he was never afraid of facing them as some of his two–eyed detractors would later allege. In fact he settled down to negotiating pace better than spin.

Pataudi had the potential to become one of the greatest batsman of his time but because of the injury he had to “compromise with his ambition to become a truly great batsman” and concentrate instead on trying to make himself a useful one.

Popularly known as “Tiger Pataudi”, he was a panther on the field. He made the covers his own and he prowled the area with such authority that Dicky Rutnagar was once moved to describe him as “the grandfather of Jonty Rhodes.”

People hardly know him as Mansur and long after the princes were stripped of their titles he is still the Nawab of Pataudi as he was then.

Young Mansur attended Winchester where he smashed Douglas Jardine’s record for the most number of runs scored. In the sixties he played for Sussex during Ted Dexter’s time and also led them in 1966.

After Winchester, Mansur followed in his father’s footsteps to Oxford. His contemporaries included his Indian team mate Abbas Ali Baig and Javed Burki who later opened for and captained Pakistan.

Under Pataudi, Indian cricket went through a renaissance. It was under his tenure that Indian spin bowling blossomed. The Indian pace attack was no more than medium paced. Often Pataudi himself opened the bowling but he brought on the spinners early on in the game even before the shine was gone off the ball. Pataudi realised that India’s strength lay in spin and forced selectors to pick the strongest team even if it meant picking four spinners. In Prasanna, Bedhi, Chardrasekhar and Venkatraghavan India had a quartet of spinners who won matches.

More significantly he instilled the conviction among his players that they could win. Before his arrival it was not conventional to play the lofted drive but Pataudi changed all that.

One can only speculate about what he would have achieved had he been free of the handicap that hindered his game.