MS Dhoni - illegal wk gloves?

[Acumen]

Ewan has sent me the following "nice" Law question:

I may have spotted MS Dhoni using illegal equipment live on TV in the last ODI v WI...(won by WI so no outcome issues).

In the TV footage, Dhoni is *very* clearly wearing w/k gloves that have the ring and little finger taped together by a loop of what looks like standard medical zinc oxide tape around *both* fingers. I checked several images and I am quite sure that the tape has not been placed around each finger individually. (I know, I left the border between sanity and obsessive spectrum behaviour some time ago to be even *noticing* things like this)

Law 40.2 states:

2. Gloves

If, as permitted under 1 above, the wicket-keeper wears gloves, they shall have no webbing between the fingers except joining index finger and thumb, where webbing may be inserted as a means of support. If used, the webbing shall be

(a) a single piece of non-stretch material which, although it may have facing material attached, shall have no reinforcements or tucks.

(b) such that the top edge of the webbing

(i) does not protrude beyond the straight line joining the top of the index finger to the top of the thumb.

(ii) is taut when a hand wearing the glove has the thumb fully extended.

See Appendix C

Appendix C refers to the first finger/thumb web and provides pictures.

Now...the presence of tape effectively creates a “web” between the last 2 fingers and even if it has been applied, as was likely, for medical reasons, I believe the tape renders the gloves illegal under Law 40.2. I understand that the “web” so created would be very small, perhaps even irrelevant as a WEB – but it would provide greater stability for a weakened finger included in the binding. This constitutes a material advantage disallowed under the Laws. The fact that you may apply tape to naked fingers for the purpose of supporting a weakened digit is irrelevant as naked fingers are not covered by Law 40.2 whereas gloves most definitely are.

Your opinion?

[gooders]

You do surprise me Colin.
I would have thought that an experienced umpire such as yourself would realize that where ICC is concerned, the laws of cricket only apply when it suits their purposes.
I clearly recall being told when I first attended an umpiring course that whilst we apply the laws, in the first class game, their competition regs virtually ignore the laws, so don't worry about what you see in the first class game.

[chiggers]

Nov 25, 2013 8:53:21 GMT Acumen said:

Ewan has sent me the following "nice" Law question:

I may have spotted MS Dhoni using illegal equipment live on TV in the last ODI v WI...(won by WI so no outcome issues).

In the TV footage, Dhoni is *very* clearly wearing w/k gloves that have the ring and little finger taped together by a loop of what looks like standard medical zinc oxide tape around *both* fingers. I checked several images and I am quite sure that the tape has not been placed around each finger individually. (I know, I left the border between sanity and obsessive spectrum behaviour some time ago to be even *noticing* things like this)

Law 40.2 states:

2. Gloves

If, as permitted under 1 above, the wicket-keeper wears gloves, they shall have no webbing between the fingers except joining index finger and thumb, where webbing may be inserted as a means of support. If used, the webbing shall be

(a) a single piece of non-stretch material which, although it may have facing material attached, shall have no reinforcements or tucks.

(b) such that the top edge of the webbing

(i) does not protrude beyond the straight line joining the top of the index finger to the top of the thumb.

(ii) is taut when a hand wearing the glove has the thumb fully extended.

See Appendix C

Appendix C refers to the first finger/thumb web and provides pictures.

Now...the presence of tape effectively creates a “web” between the last 2 fingers and even if it has been applied, as was likely, for medical reasons, I believe the tape renders the gloves illegal under Law 40.2. I understand that the “web” so created would be very small, perhaps even irrelevant as a WEB – but it would provide greater stability for a weakened finger included in the binding. This constitutes a material advantage disallowed under the Laws. The fact that you may apply tape to naked fingers for the purpose of supporting a weakened digit is irrelevant as naked fingers are not covered by Law 40.2 whereas gloves most definitely are.

Your opinion?

A web, by the definition in the laws, is something that extends between two things. If the tape binds the two things together tightly then I cannot see that it fits that definition - it cannot 'extend'. Fielders appear with two fingers taped together tightly and nobody bats an eyelid; the question here is just pedantry of the worst sort.

[jaybee]

Interesting ... I haven't seen the footage or any other image but it seems to me that there are 2 functions of the type of web mentioned in the Law (i.e. between thumb and forefinger).
It certainly provides support but could also function as a pouch to aid catching the ball - and the fact that it is to be taut when those digits are extended limits the extent to which it can act as a pouch. In other words the legislators appear to be allowing the web to perform a safety function while trying to ensure that it doesn't unduly assist making a catch.

It's a moot point whether the strapping here constitutes a 'web', but - provided it's not too loose I'd think the 'safety' point would override that possibility. If it's obviously loose then it's not strapping and ought to be removed.

Of course the remark by gooders about ICC is completely valid and we shouldn't get too worked up about this - unless some of 'our' keepers decide to follow suit!

[davehemsworth]

I would suggest that if a duck had its toes bound together by tape it would cease to have webbed feet...

[Persona Non Grata]

I was about to say that its a more permanent thing, as I recollected him doing it years and years ago, not realizing the timing of the original post. For the record I tend to agree with the idea that its not an issue with the law as written.
I cant say its from the exact match (or series) but heres an image of taped gloves. 

Also, cant speak to the time of the incident, but Law 40 does currently apply in ICC ODI matches. There are some additional limitations in the clothing regs about logos etc, but the issue of what defines a glove is left to the laws. 

Attachments: