Is Dominic Cork a CHEAT ??
haroon._c
Regarding the incident in the fourth test match when Mr Cork, after dislodging the bail
with his right foot whilst completing a follow through, had the nerve to replace it quickly
after returning to the crease. Although at the time it was allegded that none of the W.indians
appealed to the umpires and therefore the batsman wasnt given out. Having listened to
what Gordon Greenidge had to say, the former W.I. batsman who is currently doing some radio commentary
for the fifth test match, I was somewhat surprised. He recalled that the W.I. did appeal( R.Richardson)
after realising that the bail had come off but the umpires did not take any further action. They
could have employed the services of the third umpire to investigate this matter.
The main point of my article is that as a batsman you have a pretty good idea when part of
your body makes contact with the stumps and rather then walking Cork stood around claiming
innocence. Now if we take a hypothetical scenario whereby we replace Dominic Cork by
somebody say Javed Miandad I wonder how the media would have portrayed the whole issue ????
regards
Haroon.C
J.W. McCree
Steve Shadbolt
I don't think Cork knew he had trodden on the stump - it was a very
small contact. The umpire obviously didn't see the bail fall off so
couldn't give it out when the windies appealed. As to why the third
umpire wasn't used I don't know.
If Miandad had done it the tabliod press would be up in arms
complaining about cheating. But my cat knows more about cricket than
their reporters :). The serious press would probably have treated it
in a similar way to the Cork incident.
Steve
JR. Eastman
: Regarding the incident in the fourth test match when Mr Cork, after dislodging the bail
: with his right foot whilst completing a follow through, had the nerve to replace it quickly
: after returning to the crease. Although at the time it was allegded that none of the W.indians
: appealed to the umpires and therefore the batsman wasnt given out. Having listened to
: what Gordon Greenidge had to say, the former W.I. batsman who is currently doing some radio commentary
: for the fifth test match, I was somewhat surprised. He recalled that the W.I. did appeal( R.Richardson)
: after realising that the bail had come off but the umpires did not take any further action. They
: could have employed the services of the third umpire to investigate this matter.
: The main point of my article is that as a batsman you have a pretty good idea when part of
: your body makes contact with the stumps and rather then walking Cork stood around claiming
: innocence. Now if we take a hypothetical scenario whereby we replace Dominic Cork by
: somebody say Javed Miandad I wonder how the media would have portrayed the whole issue ????
:
in reply, dominic cork was actually not out. to be out hit wicket, the bails
must be removed in the act of making a stroke. if you watch the slow
motion replay, he dislodged the bail while pushing off to go for the run,
and is therefore technically NOT OUT anyway.
--
John Eastman
John.E...@Bristol.ac.uk
School of Chemistry
University Of Bristol
UK
Pramod Koshy
>
>Regarding the incident in the fourth test match when Mr Cork, after dislodging the bail
>with his right foot whilst completing a follow through, had the nerve to replace it quickly
>after returning to the crease. Although at the time it was allegded that none of the W.indians
>appealed to the umpires and therefore the batsman wasnt given out. Having listened to
>what Gordon Greenidge had to say, the former W.I. batsman who is currently doing some radio commentary
>for the fifth test match, I was somewhat surprised. He recalled that the W.I. did appeal( R.Richardson)
>after realising that the bail had come off but the umpires did not take any further action. They
>could have employed the services of the third umpire to investigate this matter.
>
>The main point of my article is that as a batsman you have a pretty good idea when part of
>your body makes contact with the stumps and rather then walking Cork stood around claiming
>innocence. Now if we take a hypothetical scenario whereby we replace Dominic Cork by
>somebody say Javed Miandad I wonder how the media would have portrayed the whole issue ????
>
>
>Haroon.C
Reminds me of an Australia and India match. Kapil Dev trying to hook an Aus
fast bowler dislodged a bail on his followthrough. Kapil dev coolly placed the
bail back when he saw it on the ground. Not one person thought it odd as it
was a very windy day. It was only the omnipresent eye of the Ch 9 that
clearly picked our cheating ? Kapil. Well the Aussie commentators had a big
laugh out of it, and if I can remember the cheat word wasn't used even once.
Pramod Koshy.
John Hall
<shad...@logica.com> writes
>I don't think Cork knew he had trodden on the stump - it was a very
>small contact. The umpire obviously didn't see the bail fall off so
>couldn't give it out when the windies appealed. As to why the third
>umpire wasn't used I don't know.
Because I believe the current regulations only allow the third umpire to
be brought in for "line decisions", ie "run out" or "stumped".
--
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
Ron Knight
|
|in reply, dominic cork was actually not out. to be out hit wicket, the bails
|must be removed in the act of making a stroke. if you watch the slow
|motion replay, he dislodged the bail while pushing off to go for the run,
|and is therefore technically NOT OUT anyway.
|
The Striker shall be out Hit Wicket if, while the ball is in play:-
(a) His wicket is broken with any part of his person, dress, or
equipment as a result of any action taken by him in preparing
to receive or in receiving a delivery, *or in setting off for his
first run, immediately after playing, or playing at, the ball.*
Take it easy,
--
Ron Knight (r...@med.unc.edu)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
I can't speak for UNC-CH, and UNC-CH can't speak for me.
It's better for both of us.
Mike Robert Brewer
I wasn't fully concentrating at the time, but I have a feeling that In
the fifth test WI first Innings, the bail was found to be on the floor
after a stroke by Lara. I think the English appealed, the umpires
confered, and I *think* that they asked the third umpire. There was
certainly a long delay anyway. Does anyone know if they did consult
the 3rd umpire, and if so, why didn't they for the Cork incident?
Mike B.
--
Mike Brewer | Address: Merton College |
Oxford University | Oxford |
Email: m...@robots.ox.ac.uk | OX1 4JD |
WWW : http://info.ox.ac.uk/~mert0053/ | England |
Har...@metnov1.bham.ac.uk
Just to confirm that the in the above mentioned incident the services of the third
umpires were employed and the replay did shoe that the batsman concerned
Lara, made no contact with the stumps. Th gust of wind was most likely culprit in this
case. However it was quite ironic that the person who appealed was Cork himself in
this incident !
haroon._c
>
>Haroon. C wrote:
>
>
>>Regarding the incident in the fourth test match when Mr Cork, after dislodging the bail
>>with his right foot whilst completing a follow through, had the nerve to replace it quickly
>>after returning to the crease. Although at the time it was allegded that none of the W.indians
>>appealed to the umpires and therefore the batsman wasnt given out. Having listened to
>>what Gordon Greenidge had to say, the former W.I. batsman who is currently doing some radio commentary
>>for the fifth test match, I was somewhat surprised. He recalled that the W.I. did appeal( R.Richardson)
>>after realising that the bail had come off but the umpires did not take any further action. They
>>could have employed the services of the third umpire to investigate this matter.
>
>>The main point of my article is that as a batsman you have a pretty good idea when part of
>>your body makes contact with the stumps and rather then walking Cork stood around claiming
>>innocence. Now if we take a hypothetical scenario whereby we replace Dominic Cork by
>>somebody say Javed Miandad I wonder how the media would have portrayed the whole issue ????
>>
>small contact. The umpire obviously didn't see the bail fall off so
>couldn't give it out when the windies appealed. As to why the third
>umpire wasn't used I don't know.
>
>complaining about cheating. But my cat knows more about cricket than
>their reporters :). The serious press would probably have treated it
>in a similar way to the Cork incident.
>
>Steve
>
Steve I agree with you totally that the serious press would have treated
the hypothetical Miandad scenario in more or less similar fashion but the
thing that concers me is that alot of people in this country are readers of
tabloid press.
To them it would be another classic case where the foreigners are caught
cheating red handed- its a myth that the tabloid are perpetually trying to create
and have been extremely successful at unfortunately.
What is the old saying that if you keep throwing mud at somebody some of it
is bound to get stuck !!!
regards
Haroon
Steve Shadbolt
>In article <DDArn...@carmen.logica.co.uk>, shad...@logica.com (Steve Shadbolt) says:
>>
>>Haroon. C wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>>. Now if we take a hypothetical scenario whereby we replace Dominic Cork by
>>>somebody say Javed Miandad I wonder how the media would have portrayed the whole issue ????
>>>
>>I don't think Cork knew he had trodden on the stump - it was a very
>>small contact. The umpire obviously didn't see the bail fall off so
>>couldn't give it out when the windies appealed. As to why the third
>>umpire wasn't used I don't know.
>>
>>If Miandad had done it the tabliod press would be up in arms
>>complaining about cheating. But my cat knows more about cricket than
>>their reporters :). The serious press would probably have treated it
>>in a similar way to the Cork incident.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>Steve I agree with you totally that the serious press would have treated
>the hypothetical Miandad scenario in more or less similar fashion but the
>thing that concers me is that alot of people in this country are readers of
>tabloid press.
>To them it would be another classic case where the foreigners are caught
>cheating red handed- its a myth that the tabloid are perpetually trying to create
>and have been extremely successful at unfortunately.
>What is the old saying that if you keep throwing mud at somebody some of it
>is bound to get stuck !!!
This is probably not the place to discuss this but this is the problem
with the UK's Government attitude to the press ie that self regulation
is the way to control what the tabloid papers are allowed to print.
Until there is an effective way of protecting people / groups of
people from unfair press attention / reporting I'm afraid this will
continue happening.
I am all for a free press but there needs to be protection for the
people who cannot afford to protect themselves from the press.
Personally I would like to see the same amount of space given to an
appology as that given to the original story. Wouldn't it be good to
read headlines like
"SUN COCKS IT UP AGAIN"
:)
Steve Shadbolt
Kurt Toolsie
>In article <DDArn...@carmen.logica.co.uk>, Steve Shadbolt
><shad...@logica.com> writes
>
>>small contact. The umpire obviously didn't see the bail fall off so
>>couldn't give it out when the windies appealed. As to why the third
>>umpire wasn't used I don't know.
>
>be brought in for "line decisions", ie "run out" or "stumped".
>--
> "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
Did they not use the third umpire, in a similar situation, in the 5th Test,
to determine that the wind had blown of one of Lara'a bails?
Kurt
---
Kurt O. Toolsie ktoo...@gelac.lasc.lockheed.com
Pi
Haroon. C wrote:
> Regarding the incident in the fourth test match when Mr Cork, after dislodging
> the bail
> with his right foot whilst completing a follow through, had the nerve to replace
> it quickly
> after returning to the crease.
I was watching at the time. He didn't replace it quickly. He sttod there a
while adjusting his clothing, maybe a good 10-15 seconds before he
obviously noticed it and replaced it. It was quite clear that he wasn't
aware that it was off until then, therefore why should he think that he had
done it?
> He recalled that the W.I.
> did appeal( R.Richardson)
> after realising that the bail had come off but the umpires did not take any
> further action.
They didn't appeal. Richie *asked* the umpire what the bail had been doing
on the ground for Cork to pick it up. I didn't find out what the umpire
said.
I am prepared to give Cork the benefit of the doubt in that he *didn't*
know that he had done it. However *if* an appeal had been made then I am
sure that he should have been out.
If it is attitude that you are thinking of, what about Dhanraj waiting for
the umpire's decision when he was obviuosly out?
_____________________________________________
Pluralitas non ponenda est sine necessitate
p...@macabre.demon.co.uk
http://cent1.lancs.ac.uk/~phb007
_____________________________________________
Stephen Fullerton
: I wasn't fully concentrating at the time, but I have a feeling that In
: the fifth test WI first Innings, the bail was found to be on the floor
: after a stroke by Lara. I think the English appealed, the umpires
: confered, and I *think* that they asked the third umpire. There was
: certainly a long delay anyway. Does anyone know if they did consult
: the 3rd umpire, and if so, why didn't they for the Cork incident?
: Mike B.
Simple, England appealed for the Lara wicket because the bail blew
off during, or just after, his stroke, and the fielders presumed
(wrongly) that Lara had made contact with the stumps.
The 3rd umpire was, apparently, asked for a decision, but as I see
it he should only be used for run-outs and stumpings, nowt else.
In Cork's case, the umpire DID see the bail, but as there was NO
APPEAL he COULD NOT give Cork out ('tis in the rules).
As soon as Cork replaced the bail (after making 4 runs, making his ground and
using it to mark his guard again!) the ball was then dead, and
hence no appeal could be made (you can kick the stumps down and
stamp on them till kingdom come once the ball is "dead" and
not be out!).
Steve
J R Partington
>They didn't appeal. Richie *asked* the umpire what the bail had been doing
>on the ground for Cork to pick it up. I didn't find out what the umpire
>said.
>
>I am prepared to give Cork the benefit of the doubt in that he *didn't*
>know that he had done it. However *if* an appeal had been made then I am
>sure that he should have been out.
>
On what grounds? He did not dislodge the bail whilst playing his
shot, but later.
--
Dr Jonathan R. Partington, Tel: UK: (0113) 2335123. Int: +44 113 2335123
School of Mathematics, Fax: UK: (0113) 2335145. Int: +44 113 2335145
University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K. Email: J.R.Par...@leeds.ac.uk
Ron Knight
|In Cork's case, the umpire DID see the bail, but as there was NO
|APPEAL he COULD NOT give Cork out ('tis in the rules).
|As soon as Cork replaced the bail (after making 4 runs, making his ground and
|using it to mark his guard again!) the ball was then dead, and
|hence no appeal could be made (you can kick the stumps down and
|stamp on them till kingdom come once the ball is "dead" and
|not be out!).
This last parenthetical remark is correct, but I don't see the
connection between it and the previous remarks, which, if I
understand them, are incorrect in two ways:
1. Cork's replacing the bail would not make the ball dead if it
were otherwise alive. Of course if he made 4 runs and then
used the bail to mark his guard again, the ball was probably
dead by the time he replaced the bail anyway, but it was not
the replacing of the bail that made the ball dead.
2. You can most certainly appeal after the ball is dead, and
indeed at any time up to the beginning of the Bowler's
run-up or bowling action for the next delivery, even if
this next delivery is after an over change--unless "Time"
has been called. See Law 27.1.
3. Of course the act upon which the appeal is based must take
place while the ball is alive (except for "Timed Out"), and
so what you are saying about being able to do anything you
want with the stumps after the ball is dead is essentially
true. Nobody is maintaining that the ball was dead when
Cork trod on the stumps, however.
Dave Shepherd
: Steve I agree with you totally that the serious press would have treated
: the hypothetical Miandad scenario in more or less similar fashion but the
: thing that concers me is that alot of people in this country are readers of
: tabloid press.
: To them it would be another classic case where the foreigners are caught
: cheating red handed- its a myth that the tabloid are perpetually trying to create
: What is the old saying that if you keep throwing mud at somebody some of it
: is bound to get stuck !!!
Surely you know the British tabloids well enough to know they
love throwing mud at anybody they can get in their gunsights, regardless
or race, creed or national alignment :-(
3rd umpire?
No, hit wicket is not in his jurisdiction at present, but
after this incident, it seems very clear that it could and should be,
perhaps along with 'carrying catches'.
Setting off for the first run does NOT exempt one from 'hit wicket'
on a legal delivery, but of course other accidental dislodgings
of the bails are not out. After an all run 4, no wonder no-one
had any idea when it happened. Cork only cheated if he knew that
he had kicked the stump.
Dave
Michiel Boland
> 3rd umpire?
> No, hit wicket is not in his jurisdiction at present, but
> after this incident, it seems very clear that it could and should be,
> perhaps along with 'carrying catches'.
Oh no! This is the beginning of the end!!!
--
Michiel Boland <bol...@sci.kun.nl>
University of Nijmegen
The Netherlands
Andrew Banks
According to the law 35.1 you can still be out even though if the person concerned
has finished playing his shot and accidentally dislodges the bail on attempting to
make a run.
Jon Thackray
They did. However, the difference between this case and Cork's case is
that England appealed. WI did not appeal, so Cork could not be given
out by any umpire.
--
Dr. Jon Thackray jo...@harlqn.co.uk 44 1223 872522 (voice)
Harlequin Ltd. 44 1223 872519 (fax)
Barrington Hall
Barrington
Cambridge CB2 5RG
England
Karthikeyan Madathil
Syed> As I have written above, according to Tony Lewis, Cork
Syed> was aware that he had dislodged the bail. However, since
Syed> apparently no appeal was made before the ball was dead, Cork
Syed> was not out.
The last sentence irks my imagination. I remember the rules saying the
ball is considered dead when it "is finally settled in the gloves of the
wicketkeeper". So, if an appeal can't be made after the ball is dead,
you can't be out caught behind, since the ball is dead the moment the
keeper catches it ... :-)
Seriously, till when _can_ an appeal be made?
Regards,
Karthik
--
Karthikeyan Madathil DSP Design Texas Instruments
Syed M. Ali
]> In article <40n5mp$m...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>,
]> Haroon. C wrote:
]>
]> > Regarding the incident in the fourth test match when Mr Cork, after dislodging
]> > the bail
]> > with his right foot whilst completing a follow through, had the nerve to replace
]> > it quickly
]> > after returning to the crease.
]>
]> I was watching at the time. He didn't replace it quickly. He sttod there a
]> while adjusting his clothing, maybe a good 10-15 seconds before he
]> obviously noticed it and replaced it. It was quite clear that he wasn't
]> aware that it was off until then, therefore why should he think that he had
]> done it?
Well while the third umpire was being consulted about the Lara
incident, Tony Lewis, the TV commentator, revealed that Cork did
acknbowledge that he was aware of the fact that he had dislodged
the bail himself while batting in the fourth Test at Old Trafford.
This news obviously hasn't made its way to rsc. And I don't see
any reason why Lewis would say something which was not true AND
detrimental to an England player.
]> I am prepared to give Cork the benefit of the doubt in that he *didn't*
]> know that he had done it. However *if* an appeal had been made then I am
]> sure that he should have been out.
As I have written above, according to Tony Lewis, Cork was aware
that he had dislodged the bail. However, since apparently no
appeal was made before the ball was dead, Cork was not out.
The question in Cork's case is not whether he was out, but rather
did he cheat (and hence shattered another illusion :-) by not
walking when he knew that he was out. Of course, we are assuming
here that Cork was not genuinely ignorant of the fact that he was
out when he dislodged the bail--a highly improbable scenario IMO.
Syed
--
Gott wuerfelt nicht -- God does not play dice
Mike Robert Brewer
>
> Well while the third umpire was being consulted about the Lara
> incident, Tony Lewis, the TV commentator, revealed that Cork did
> acknbowledge that he was aware of the fact that he had dislodged
> the bail himself while batting in the fourth Test at Old Trafford.
But was he aware of the fact as it happened or soon afterwards (still
"while batting"). I believe it is possible for him to run through
events in his mind and become aware that the only sensible explanation
was that he himself had knocked it off.
> As I have written above, according to Tony Lewis, Cork was aware
> that he had dislodged the bail. However, since apparently no
> appeal was made before the ball was dead, Cork was not out.
>
> The question in Cork's case is not whether he was out, but rather
> did he cheat (and hence shattered another illusion :-) by not
> walking when he knew that he was out.
I really don't think this incident can be called "cheating". What law
has Cork broken? In my mind you have to break a rule in order to be
accused of cheating. The rules specifically say that the fielding
team has to appeal to the umpire in order for the batsman to be out.
So even if Cork knew he had dislodged the bail himself, he is
perfectly justified in staying there.
There is the question of sportsmanship and "this is just not cricket",
but I believe that in an important game you have to take advantage
of the rules, but not break them. It is up to the batsman of course.
Graeme Hick walked when he knew he had nicked the ball but the umpire
seemed not to be about to raise his finger. In that situation, the
fielders have made an appeal, so in a sense the game is up... they
know you're out, and you know you're out. So even if you are legally
allowed to stay, in that situation I think the batsman should walk,
but it's still a difficult decision for the batsman.
But of course if the fielders don't appeal... well then the decision is
easy.
Ron Knight
|... [What Law]
|has Cork broken? In my mind you have to break a rule in order to be
|accused of cheating. The rules specifically say that the fielding
|team has to appeal to the umpire in order for the batsman to be out.
|So even if Cork knew he had dislodged the bail himself, he is
|perfectly justified in staying there.
I addressed this point at length in another post, but perhaps it would
be good to restate it briefly here, for those who didn't have the time
or the newsreader for the post before. The Laws do NOT specifically
say what you claim they say. They specifically say that there must be
an appeal before the Umpire can say anything about whether the Batsman
is out, but not that an Umpire's decision is necessary for a Batsman
to be out. Appeals are a method of resolving disputes, but when there
is no dispute and everyone knows what has happened, there is no need
to involve the Umpire unless there is a necessity to consult his opinion
about the intent of the Batsman.
Read the ten Laws describing the different modes of dismissal. Five
and a half of them say nothing whatsoever about an appeal being needed.
They simply say that the Batsman is out when a specific thing happens.
When everybody knows it happened, there is no need to refer the matter
to the Umpire. These 5-1/2 methods of dismissal are Bowled, Caught,
Stumped, *Hit Wicket*, Run Out, and the "old" half of the L.B.W. Law.
These Laws require no appeal.
For the other 4-1/2 methods of dismissal, Timed Out, Hit the Ball
Twice, Obstructing the Field, Handled the Ball, and the new part of
the L.B.W. Law, appeals are specifically mentioned by the Law because
the intent of the Batsman is a factor, and unless the Batsman
admits his intent it is necessary for the Umpire to rule on what
he thinks the Batsman's intent was.
This doesn't mean the Batsman can't walk for one of these methods
of dismissal, too. In fact it could be argued that it is even
more unsporting in these cases not to walk when one should be out,
since this would involve a lie about one's intention--claiming that
one did not intend to obstruct the field when in fact one did, for
example.
I myself have repeated the catch phrase, "You're not out until the
Umpire gives you out." But a close examination of the Laws reveals
that in the most common methods of dismissal this is not a requirement
at all.
M.M.Kamal Hashmi
>Stephen Fullerton <S.R.Fu...@durham.ac.uk> posted:
>|using it to mark his guard again!) the ball was then dead, and
>|hence no appeal could be made (you can kick the stumps down and
[stuff deleted]
>2. You can most certainly appeal after the ball is dead, and
> indeed at any time up to the beginning of the Bowler's
> run-up or bowling action for the next delivery, even if
> this next delivery is after an over change--unless "Time"
> has been called. See Law 27.1.
[stuff deleted]
I remember a story about a match here in England (as
told on a Test match special many years ago) when after
close of play on the 1st day of a match the unpire
remarked to the bowler who'd bowled last that he was
surprised the bowler hadn't appealed for an LBW on the very
last ball because he'd have given the batsman out.
The next day, before the first ball was bowled, the
bowler appealed for the LBW and an embarassed unpire
gave the player out.
Kamal.
P.S. Is anyone else finding the arguments about who is and who isn't
a chest getting tediously like a religious argument where
belief is all important and logic plays second fiddle.
For example, saying RR is a cheat for not walking but at
the same time saying Atherton was merely drying the ball
by applying dirt to it.
Clarke Brunt
> I remember the rules saying the
> ball is considered dead when it "is finally settled in the gloves of the
> wicketkeeper". So, if an appeal can't be made after the ball is dead,
> you can't be out caught behind, since the ball is dead the moment the
> keeper catches it ... :-)
>
> Seriously, till when _can_ an appeal be made?
I think it's until the ball next becomes 'live' by the bowler
starting his run for the next ball. There may be some rule against
an appeal being made *after* lunch or tea pertaining to the last
ball before the interval! I seem to remember (hypothetical?) stories
of lunchtime discussion between the players involving them
saying "I think that would have been out if you had appealed",
only for them to appeal after the break and get the decision.
--
Clarke Brunt (CCB), Principal Software Engineer, Laser-Scan Ltd, Science Park,
Milton Rd, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 4FY, England. Tel: (+44) (0)1223 420414; Fax: 420044
Email: CLA...@LSL.CO.UK (via BRITAIN.EU.NET)
Dion Almaer
then the ball is again live and not when it hits the wicket
keepers gloves
Dion Almaer