An editorial in the Herald Sun says
It goes on to conclude that
This does not make sense. The spectator has as much right as a player to keep the ball.
We have often been a witness to the crassness of players who grab the stumps as memorabilia. Whenever I see that, the first thought which comes to my mind is that they are gathering them to sell it off later.
In the context of the editorial and the recurring sight of players making off with the stumps, balls and what not,I ask, if players can get away with it, why not a spectator?
A STRANGE game of keepings-off is being played between a Melbourne sports fan
and Cricket Australia.
At the centre of the struggle is the ball that
Adam Gilchrist hit out of Hobart's Bellerive Oval against Sri Lanka to become
the first man to hit 100 Test sixes.
It goes on to conclude that
The ball should be Gilly's or, better still, be donated to the new National
Sports Museum at the MCG.
This does not make sense. The spectator has as much right as a player to keep the ball.
We have often been a witness to the crassness of players who grab the stumps as memorabilia. Whenever I see that, the first thought which comes to my mind is that they are gathering them to sell it off later.
In the context of the editorial and the recurring sight of players making off with the stumps, balls and what not,I ask, if players can get away with it, why not a spectator?
No comments:
Post a Comment