Did Trescothick cheat?

Question

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/366150.html.

Marcus Trescothick admits he used mint on ball to retain the shine of the new ball during the 2005 ashes.

Usage of artificial substances on a cricket ball is illegal according to law 42.3.a.i

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play,68,AR.html.

What are the implications? Your comments on it.

Answer 1

I think people are taking this the wrong way.

Quote - "Through trial and error I finally settled on the best type of spit for the task at hand."

Am I the only one who thinks this is more of a tongue in cheek comment rather than a guilty confession?

The main reason he probably included this was simply because after the Duncan Fletcher book scandal, he knew it would cause his books sales to go through the roof!

Anyways it is perfectly within the rules as long as the ball didn't make contact with the sweet (which it didn't, unlike Dravid) and the ICC has already confirmed that.

He sucked on Murray Mints simply because they made his produce more saliva, not a specially unnatural super spit! Scientific tests will probably be done now to see what effect the mints have on saliva.

Although theres nothing to worry about now, our current ball shiner Cook much prefers Jelly Beans. :)

Answer 2

I actually think Trescothick has been smart here, whilst it is against the rules to use a "sweet" to polish the ball like Rahul Dravid (rubbing a sweet against the ball) its not illegal to be chewing sweets whilst playing a test match, and then using the saliva which is in your mouth to rub against the ball. So basically Trescothick has been eating these "Murray Mints" whilst playing, and using the saliva generated from the sweets to rub on the ball, which clearly worked.

So Trescothick has bended the rules rather than broken them here, because he is still using his own saliva to polish the ball, its just that the saliva has something else in it as well.

Whilst this kind of "foul play" is frowned upon, its not against any rules, so nothing will come from it. It doesnt seem to be a major story here in England anyway as its not even on our Cricinfo page.

Nothing will come from it, i dont understand why Trescothick has publicly admitted doing it though, seeing as it could upset a few people and could give reasons for the Aussies to moan.

Answer 3

Well KooKee, this Aussie isn't 'moaning'. I think it's a big laugh & admire his cheek for doing so. It is my belief that most bowlers use something or other to shine the ball & he is no exception. I haven't as yet heard any comment on it in Australia apart from the news stories. But then I haven't seen this morning's papers!

Answer 4

dose it really matter ant more it was like  3 years ago.

Answer 5

I'm old enough to remember the good old days of Brylcream hair cream. Also it wasn't that long ago that Atherton was caught roughing the ball up.

Of course its cheating, but only if you are caught.

Answer 6

If its illegal then its cheating! Its as simple as that!

Answer 7

Why is this suddenly being seen as a "revelation"? We all knew that Trescothick sucked sweets during matches, using it to keep his mouth moist for usage on the ball. He was known as the "Chief Sucker". (That's sounds really rude, doesn't it?)

Was he cheating? There is a case for saying yes, but equally one for saying no.

The rules are you can't use an artificial substance on the ball. But there are no rules to prevent someone from sucking sweets, just as they can consume anything they like during a match: apples, crisps, sirloin steaks, even cigarettes are not actually banned!

And what would prevent someione from the time honoured method of putting a pebble in his mouth for moisture?

Add to that the fact that the umpires, unless they were two men with white sticks and a guide dog, were fully aware of Trescothicks actions. The TV cameras certainly picked up on it.

And waht purpose does anyone think the jelly beans were serving in last years Test against India? They weren't on the field just to annoy Zaheer Khan.

Implications? None. There is a big difference between sucking sweets, to keep your mouth moist, and therefore have more spit to put on the ball to polish it, and using a bottle top to alter the seam on a ball.

Since when was cricket a gentleman's game? Even when it was the sole preserve of "gentlemen", cheating was always going on. I don't regard this as cheating.

Answer 8

i probably see there is nothing wrong in this but according to the cricketing rules if it is illegal then it is a cheating...

Answer 9

yes