by dechuck » Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:33:28
by bongopon.. » Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:49:02
by Dave -Turne » Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:49:29
"He (Kookaburra spokseman) denied the bat infringed sections 6.1 and 6.2 of
the Laws of Cricket which state that a bat's blade must be made entirely of
wood and that any protective covering should not damage the ball."
by subi.. » Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:01:15
> > According to Law 6 it was OK and many players used it. Does anyone know
> > why it was deemed illegal and why?
> Because of the graphite reinforcing. If you just google for Pontings bat
> illegal theres a lot about it, ie ...http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/17/1140064230682.html
> "He (Kookaburra spokseman) denied the bat infringed sections 6.1 and 6.2 of
> the Laws of Cricket which state that a bat's blade must be made entirely of
> wood and that any protective covering should not damage the ball."
by Ian Galbrait » Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:11:00
> Because of the graphite reinforcing. If you just google for Pontings bat
> illegal theres a lot about it, ie ...
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/17/1140064230682.html
> "He (Kookaburra spokseman) denied the bat infringed sections 6.1 and 6.2 of
> the Laws of Cricket which state that a bat's blade must be made entirely of
> wood and that any protective covering should not damage the ball."
--
"Every normal man must at times be tempted to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H. L. Mencken
by dechuck » Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:54:01
> As far as I can remember, no particular reason was given. At the heart
> of the matter was whether the graphite was an 'integral part' of the
> bat, which can only be made of wood. Kookaburra insisted that the
> graphite was a stripping that made the bats only last longer, while
> MCC said it made them more powerful.
by dechuck » Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:55:01
> > According to Law 6 it was OK and many players used it. Does anyone know
> > why it was deemed illegal and why?
> Because of the graphite reinforcing. If you just google for Pontings bat
> illegal theres a lot about it, ie
> ...http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/17/1140064230682.html
> "He (Kookaburra spokseman) denied the bat infringed sections 6.1 and 6.2
> of
> the Laws of Cricket which state that a bat's blade must be made entirely
> of
> wood and that any protective covering should not damage the ball."
really? they must be Indian because according to the Laws they do
by M.. » Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:04:32
> > > According to Law 6 it was OK and many players used it. Does anyone know
> > > why it was deemed illegal and why?
> > Because of the graphite reinforcing. If you just google for Pontings bat
> > illegal theres a lot about it, ie ...http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/17/1140064230682.html
> > "He (Kookaburra spokseman) denied the bat infringed sections 6.1 and 6.2 of
> > the Laws of Cricket which state that a bat's blade must be made entirely of
> > wood and that any protective covering should not damage the ball."
> well, the gloves manufacturer is saying that the dhoni gloves do not
> infringe any sections of the LoC and that gilchrist also uses them. so
> why not accept that as well?
And Gilchrist does not also use them. According to reports, Gilchrist
is quoted as saying that he had heard this rumour, had them checked
and Gilchrist's gloves passed - most likely because they are different
gloves that do not have the extra support connecting webbing to valley
between thumb and forefinger.
The question was posed "what made Ponting's bat illegal?" Or, a
better way to phrase it would have been "by what reason did the powers
that be decide that Ponting's bat was illegal - what rules did it
break"
I think the stretch by Kookaburra was within the word of the law, but
not the spirit.
Moby
by M.. » Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:06:23
> >> According to Law 6 it was OK and many players used it. Does anyone know
> >> why
> >> it was deemed illegal and why?
> > As far as I can remember, no particular reason was given. At the heart
> > of the matter was whether the graphite was an 'integral part' of the
> > bat, which can only be made of wood. Kookaburra insisted that the
> > graphite was a stripping that made the bats only last longer, while
> > MCC said it made them more powerful.
> what shitted me off was that the MCC gave no reason. If someone would post
> the MCC ruling i would shut-up on this subject
Moby
by Pullimootai Doraisam » Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:19:57
> ..
>>> According to Law 6 it was OK and many players used it. Does anyone
>>> know why
>>> it was deemed illegal and why?
>> As far as I can remember, no particular reason was given. At the
>> heart of the matter was whether the graphite was an 'integral part'
>> of the bat, which can only be made of wood. Kookaburra insisted that
>> the graphite was a stripping that made the bats only last longer,
>> while MCC said it made them more powerful.
> what shitted me off was that the MCC gave no reason. If someone would
> post the MCC ruling i would shut-up on this subject
by subi.. » Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:44:11
> > > > According to Law 6 it was OK and many players used it. Does anyone know
> > > > why it was deemed illegal and why?
> > > Because of the graphite reinforcing. If you just google for Pontings bat
> > > illegal theres a lot about it, ie ...http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/17/1140064230682.html
> > > "He (Kookaburra spokseman) denied the bat infringed sections 6.1 and 6.2 of
> > > the Laws of Cricket which state that a bat's blade must be made entirely of
> > > wood and that any protective covering should not damage the ball."
> > well, the gloves manufacturer is saying that the dhoni gloves do not
> > infringe any sections of the LoC and that gilchrist also uses them. so
> > why not accept that as well?
> Because they weren't (just as Ponting's bat wasn't) considered legal
> by the people who make the decisions.
> And Gilchrist does not also use them. ?According to reports, Gilchrist
> is quoted as saying that he had heard this rumour, had them checked
> and Gilchrist's gloves passed - most likely because they are different
> gloves that do not have the extra support connecting webbing to valley
> between thumb and forefinger.
> The question was posed "what made Ponting's bat illegal?" ?Or, a
> better way to phrase it would have been "by what reason did the powers
> that be decide that Ponting's bat was illegal - what rules did it
> break"
> I think the stretch by Kookaburra was within the word of the law, but
> not the spirit.
> Moby
1. The furore over Ponting's bat has made Kookaburra a nice littel windfall.
2. Why did Ponting decide to bat first?
3. Shame on Lankans(was: Why bat and bat and bat)
5. Kookaburra withdraws Graphite bats
6. Why was underarm bowling made illegal in tests as well?
7. Probably using an illegal bat
8. Kallis - "I am much better than Ponting"
10. Why am I posting before 6am?
11. Pataudi says -- It’s time for Ganguly to make some friends
12. Saurav: It’s no good finishing second
13. Veeru: If cricket has a God, it’s Sachin’
14. Why am I not suprised at this??