An interesting, if slightly twisted, legal defence occurs to me, inspired by your parallel of diving in soccer. The rules of soccer, of course, allow diving -- they just punish it, by anything from a free-kick to a fine to a suspension. Similarly, the rules of cricket allow the bowling of a deliberate no-ball.
"M'lud, it is true that my 18 year old client overstepped the line ... ha ha ... in this case. He is prepared to take the consequences, and suffer the ultimate penalty as provided for in the laws of cricket: that is to say, the provision of an extra run to the opposition, together with the obligation to add a further ball to the over in question. May it please the court; this penalty has already been exacted.
"It has been suggested by many in the media that my client's actions might materially have affected the match in question. Some, perhaps those of a less informed nature, have gone so far as to suggest that, had my client bowled a Mr Trott out, rather than deliver the so-called "no ball," the very result of this match might well have been overturned.
"My client fully accepts this proposition. Indeed, I would go further. My client is enthusiastically convinced that cricket is, above all, a game in which the outcome may depend upon the effects of a single ball.
"Consequently, my client submits that he deliberately overstepped the crease by an apparently excessive amount, in order to court derision and a false sense of security in Mr Trott's mind. The laws of cricket being as they are, my client was fully aware that such an action would not reduce the number of effective balls to be delivered in that over.
"I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that my client's sole intention was to set his opponent up to be clean-bowled on the next delivery. Use of strategy in this way has long been a feature of what I believe our American friends call "base ball." In "base ball" it is considered quite appropriate intentionally to deliver a "pitch" in such a way that the umpire shall require a further "pitch."
"The fact that my client's next ball was a wobbly piece of shit that bounced twice before reaching Mr Trott and was subsequently despatched to the boundary with some celerity does not obviate the clear strategic intention in this case. Far from being censured, my young client should in fact be applauded for his perspicacious appreciation of the ebb and flow in a "Test Match."
"Notwithstanding the generous contribution of Mr Majeed towards Generators-R-Us (a wholly-owned subsidiary of ZardariCorp), my client is adamant that his choice was based on the laws of cricket, and the laws of cricket alone."
I mean, of course it's bollocks. But I've seen worse bollocks than this stand up in an English court.
It's just not crook-bat
"M'lud, it is true that my 18 year old client overstepped the line ... ha ha ... in this case. He is prepared to take the consequences, and suffer the ultimate penalty as provided for in the laws of cricket: that is to say, the provision of an extra run to the opposition, together with the obligation to add a further ball to the over in question. May it please the court; this penalty has already been exacted.
"It has been suggested by many in the media that my client's actions might materially have affected the match in question. Some, perhaps those of a less informed nature, have gone so far as to suggest that, had my client bowled a Mr Trott out, rather than deliver the so-called "no ball," the very result of this match might well have been overturned.
"My client fully accepts this proposition. Indeed, I would go further. My client is enthusiastically convinced that cricket is, above all, a game in which the outcome may depend upon the effects of a single ball.
"Consequently, my client submits that he deliberately overstepped the crease by an apparently excessive amount, in order to court derision and a false sense of security in Mr Trott's mind. The laws of cricket being as they are, my client was fully aware that such an action would not reduce the number of effective balls to be delivered in that over.
"I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that my client's sole intention was to set his opponent up to be clean-bowled on the next delivery. Use of strategy in this way has long been a feature of what I believe our American friends call "base ball." In "base ball" it is considered quite appropriate intentionally to deliver a "pitch" in such a way that the umpire shall require a further "pitch."
"The fact that my client's next ball was a wobbly piece of shit that bounced twice before reaching Mr Trott and was subsequently despatched to the boundary with some celerity does not obviate the clear strategic intention in this case. Far from being censured, my young client should in fact be applauded for his perspicacious appreciation of the ebb and flow in a "Test Match."
"Notwithstanding the generous contribution of Mr Majeed towards Generators-R-Us (a wholly-owned subsidiary of ZardariCorp), my client is adamant that his choice was based on the laws of cricket, and the laws of cricket alone."
I mean, of course it's bollocks. But I've seen worse bollocks than this stand up in an English court.