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.
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.
