Bat out of Hell

[Paoli]

All the bloody bat has is a piece of graphite at the back to prolong the life of the bat....What a bloody joke???

Punter, in a Cricinfo article said he has had one of the best laughs for a while and that he doesn't give a stuff about it...Poor old traditionalists!!

[acker]

Bejeezus the MCC must be worried about their overated second rate Vaughan half - led pack of half -pints and half - wits to start lowering their sights down to this new low level of ludicrasy.

Why not just ban Punter and a few other Australian players from entering Great Brittain. And maybe force us to play a second rate team a-la like the one Mike Brearley beat during the World Series Cricket crisis. I noted then that Brearley still retained a couple of WSC players in his team back then.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by acker

Why not just ban Punter and a few other Australian players from entering Great Britain.

Steady on, Acker: remember we have a general election in ten days time. You keep posting ideas like this and people will pick up on it and vote Tory! Can't be good for cricket - or much else, come to that.

[Beny]

Why not just ban Punter and a few other Australian players from entering Great Brittain

Well if (I mean when), Australia win the ashes, Ern could quite eaisily become a security risk! Preventing that from happening might be high on the goverments list.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Paoli69

Punter, in a Cricinfo article said he has had one of the best laughs for a while and that he doesn't give a stuff about it...Poor old traditionalists!!

Well why don't they change the rules, I don't see any team getting an advantage with the graphite on the bat, but I don't know much about it. but would I like to be a wicket keeper knowing the back of the bat was not solid, just a thought.

Originally Posted by acker 45339

Bejeezus the MCC must be worried about their overated second rate Vaughan half - led pack of half -pints and half - wits to start lowering their sights down to this new low level of ludicrasy.

Quite possible like this post.

Originally Posted by acker

Why not just ban Punter and a few other Australian players from entering Great Brittain. And maybe force us to play a second rate team a-la like the one Mike Brearley beat during the World Series Cricket crisis. I noted then that Brearley still retained a couple of WSC players in his team back then.

LOL what are you talking about?.

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan 45340

Steady on, Acker: remember we have a general election in ten days time. You keep posting ideas like this and people will pick up on it and vote Tory! Can't be good for cricket - or much else, come to that.

Hmm OF, I don't know who I would rather win--The Tories--or the England team!!!

Originally Posted by Beny 45341

Well if (I mean when), Australia win the ashes, Ern could quite eaisily become a security risk! Preventing that from happening might be high on the goverments list.

Now first Beny, stick to if!, that came in your mind.
Yes we have ways of making you lose

[acker]

Originally Posted by Ernest

LOL what are you talking about?.

Please accept my humblest appologies Ernest , I confused John Snow with Bob Willis in relationship to the WSC bit.


with my tail between my legs yours humbly acker.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Question on this issue (sorry - some of the tangents looked like fun). Where does the MCC's role begin and end regarding the rules of cricket? Personally, I think there's merit in separating the legislature & the judiciary. Possibly the MCC retains its role as keeper of the rules (ie. legislative) and the ICC is responsible for interpretation (ie. judiciary). This is consistent with the arm straightening intepretation - the rules of cricket stat that you can't straighten the arm during delivery (or words to that effect) and the ICC determines how this should be interepreted.

Given the regulation of 15 degrees plus or minus the number you first thought of, depending which is bigger (I'm sure your mother's maiden name should figure in the equation, but can't place it), I can understand the reluctance of the ICC to actually implement the rules (and others to allow them to). However, surely this would provide a platform for consistency, possibly even equity. Hey, they could even go one further and establish a technical panel to advise on these matters...

[Occasional Fan]

There's merit in that idea, LSD. I wonder if anyone in power is talking about it? You answered your opening question yourself: the MCC has sole responsibility for the Laws of Cricket, and the ICC's own regulations make that clear (can't remember which regulation, but I have read it and if you want I could search for it again).

[Leafy Seadragon]

OF, I appreciate that the MCC has sole responsibility, but what does this mean? It seems to me that the ICC is trying to have its cake and eat it too. In the case of the bat, the ICC has said "no, that's to do with the rules, so its an MCC call", but surely, the ICC has already supplanted this authority with its regulations "well yes the rules might read like that, but what they really mean is..." - classic example the non-straightening. Surely the bat issue is a direct correlation

[Occasional Fan]

I completely agree, LSD. Several of my posts on the arm-straightening issue have made the point that the ICC should butt out of the issue altogether. It doesn't make the Laws and has no authority at all over any form of cricket other than international cricket - which must be somewhere down in the 0.1% area in terms of proportion of matches where they have jurisdiction. It is somewhat quaint, to say the least, that one relatively minor club has the sole authority to make the Laws for the world, rather than having some supreme body at the top of the game (rather than in the middle tiers) do so, but then, it's a quaint game, isn't it? It might be sensible to move the Law making authority up a notch or two, and perhaps have a governing body for the game which has jurisdiction over all cricket, but that's not the way the game is organised at the moment. In the meantime, I like your idea of having a legislative body (MCC) and a judiciary (perhaps a committee of the ICC).