Law 42 (3) Match ball etc.

[matchman]

In view of recent events, does anyone consider there is a case for deleting Part 3 of Law 42 - "The match ball -changing its condition" in its entirety?

[swerveman]

My immediate reaction is "No".

What's your point?

[matchman]

I Suppose its just the cynic in me really. I do recall hearing the views of one ex first class umpire saying something along the lines of - if that's what they want to do let them get on with it. I do think that if this part of Law 42 was deleted it would make little or no difference as I don't think the majority of players would wish to change the condition in any case.
The sad part of all this is, of course, is that we had one International Umpire who was prepared to put his head above the parapet and we don't need reminding as to what has happened to him.
I for one am happy for the status quo to remain but I thought I would test the water!

[swerveman]

I think I see what you're getting at, now. Darrell Hair clearly thought the law was worth fighting for, but others have been heard to disagree.

I think this is well worth discussing, but I'm going to plead "insufficient experience" just now. I'll let someone else make the running on this one.

[johnfgolding]

I thought this is an interesting and obvious comment , which I read in a local publication. The rest of the sentiments in the article refer to the ICC and the two umpires has been exhaustivly covered.

"What relevance does this have for us in the recreational game - well next season any bowler will feel he is able to cheat by deliberately changing the condition of the ball in the certain knowledge that no umpire can, or will, be allowed to penalise him for it.

Decisions will be challenged end League committees will have to determine the rights and wrongs of any decision after the match is finished a recipe for confrontation and disaster for the recreational'.: game!"