England v Pakistan 4th Test, The Oval

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ronan

Active member
Joined
5 May 2005
Messages
5,935
Reaction score
0
Who was the last country to be found guilty and penalised for cheating in Test cricket? :fishing:

All this talk about ball tampering, and with Atherton in the studio, I thought it was a bit ironic...
 

finchbee

Gambler
Joined
8 Jan 2001
Messages
4,072
Reaction score
9
Location
Wokingham, Berks
He reckons that the umpires should have handled the situation with a lot more sensitivity.


How could he have done that ?

Hair to Inzy "Mr Ul Haq it appears that the condition of the ball has been altered ? Do you know why ?"

This is one of the strongest allegations in the game ! Hair dealt with it in accordance of the rules, he must have believed the ball had been altered, Doctrove must have agreed !

The ball being changed and their issue with it to me shows that they may have something to hide. If you had not cheated say fine and let the investigation prove you right. By making a stand and protesting to me suggests that you have something to hide. WHy did they wait till tea ?

IMHO You cannot replace the umpires !! No umpire would have wanted to stand in after what had happened
 

Brickie Chap

Muppet Hunter
Joined
12 Feb 2001
Messages
19,764
Reaction score
0
Location
Wouldnt you like to know
lol

i'm loving the sarcasm, esp given some of your posts in the past :cool:



So you cant
dog4qn.gif


hellogiraffe2mv.gif
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
Today's Metro, of all newspapers, is the only media outlet that has found any evidence of ball-tampering? I find that a bit surprising - can you scan it in and post it?
 

stedders

Moderator
Joined
18 Apr 2000
Messages
4,089
Reaction score
12
Location
Whitton (the Surrey end!)
Er, what like Mike Gatting "knuckled down & got on with the job in hand" in Pakistan when Shakoor Rana made his allegations of cheating????

No TV evidence & everything points to a quite appauling piece of umpiring. Can't blame the Pakistan side at all for making a public show of their contempt for this claim that they have been cheating.

Gatting did not refuse to take the field. He just just exception to being called a cheat by the Pakistani umpire.
Gatting may have been a bit out of order, but he did not refuse to play the game that was down to Shakoor Rana.
 

Burno

Active member
Joined
15 Apr 2000
Messages
1,252
Reaction score
1
Location
Olney, Bucks
How many Surrey players are in the Pakistan team?
 

jmcp

INVALID EMAIL
Joined
12 Jul 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
I think its 0 ex surrey and 1 ex Middlesex at the moment in the squad
 

Russell

Active member
Joined
15 Feb 2001
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
0
Location
Caravan site
It's no good thinking Pakistan tampered with the ball, Hair should know who did it and have seen him. Hair should then have reported it to both captains before changing the ball and penalising Pakistan the 5 runs (hardly a fitting punishment if the "crime" is proven).

Hair may well be right in how he terminated the game, and Pakistan may well be wrong in how they expressed their protest, but I'm with Ian Botham's view - can it be proved the ball was tampered with? If not, Hair shouldn't stand in any test again and Pakistan should get an unreserved apology.
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,584
Reaction score
12,492
Location
London
Where is the laws of cricket does it say the umpire has to prove that the ball was tampered with and that the umpire has to know who did it?
 

Les Beeavinu

Administrator
Joined
5 Aug 2002
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
5,641
Location
Sandhurst
It doesn't. It's down to the umpires discretion.
 

Les Beeavinu

Administrator
Joined
5 Aug 2002
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
5,641
Location
Sandhurst
To play devil's advocate for a moment, if Hair hadn't taken the action, and decided to wait for a convenient break to discuss it, and England had lost 3 wickets in that time, what would we be thinking now?

Hair didn't make an independent decision, he discussed it with both Doctgrove and the third umpire and they came to a joint decision, according to the rules.
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,584
Reaction score
12,492
Location
London
What makes you think he discussed it with the third umpire?

IMHO the law is the law. Hair was insensitive - absolutely and he shouldn't have been. However when the chairman of the PCB suggests that they were protesting for "a few minutes" and yet it was over half an hour later before the match was forfeited without Pakistan coming onto the playing field I can only side with the umpires here. It's about time the ICC got to grips with situations like this.
 

Les Beeavinu

Administrator
Joined
5 Aug 2002
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
5,641
Location
Sandhurst
What makes you think he discussed it with the third umpire?

IMHO the law is the law. Hair was insensitive - absolutely and he shouldn't have been. However when the chairman of the PCB suggests that they were protesting for "a few minutes" and yet over half an hour later the match was forfeited without Pakistan coming onto the playing field........

I thought this was confirmed on TMS yesterday afternoon.
 

West Ealing Bee

Only Reading
Joined
6 Apr 2000
Messages
16,572
Reaction score
0
Location
At the match
However when the chairman of the PCB suggests that they were protesting for "a few minutes" and yet it was over half an hour later before the match was forfeited without Pakistan coming onto the playing field I can only side with the umpires here. It's about time the ICC got to grips with situations like this.

This is where things get interesting.

After the first aborted effort to play Hair went and asked them to come onto the field, they again refused.

That's not a protest, that's refusal to play.

Bob Woolmer has suggested they might fly home if Inzi is found guilty of bringing the game into disripute and banned. They might as well go now as I don't think the ICC have an alternative :shrug:
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,584
Reaction score
12,492
Location
London
That's not a protest, that's refusal to play.

Bob Woolmer has suggested they might fly home if Inzi is found guilty of bringing the game into disripute and banned. They might as well go now as I don't think the ICC have an alternative :shrug:

:imwith:

Even if they find him not guilty of altering the condition of the ball, he is bound to be found guilty of bringing the game into disripute.

However the Chair of the PCB has said that they have no complaint with the ECB. I doubt they will go home. Especially as the ICC should be a little bit clever and not hear the case until afterwards.
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
Well, I was there - and I reckon Hair and Doctrove made the decision (though I bet it was really Hair and Doctrove went along with it) and then the third or fourth umpire (why are there so many umpires these days?) came out with a box of old balls. I don't think he was involved in the decision.

The ICC are going through their disciplinary procedures at the moment, as they have to. But they will do cricket a huge disservice unless they can publicly demonstrate that Hair was right that the Pakistanis were tampering with the ball. Either that or hang Hair out to dry. Punishing Inzi will be a PR disaster for the ICC unless they can demonstrate to a disbelieving cricketing public around the world that Hair was right.
 

Les Beeavinu

Administrator
Joined
5 Aug 2002
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
5,641
Location
Sandhurst
This is where things get interesting.

After the first aborted effort to play Hair went and asked them to come onto the field, they again refused.

That's not a protest, that's refusal to play.

Bob Woolmer has suggested they might fly home if Inzi is found guilty of bringing the game into disripute and banned. They might as well go now as I don't think the ICC have an alternative :shrug:

... and now that Woolmer's said that, they have no option. Stupid thing for Woolmer to say and if they refuse, they should be banned from international matches.

Noticed on the news that Musharef has now given his support to the Pakistan team. I hope this doesn't go all El Salvador - Honduras.
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,584
Reaction score
12,492
Location
London
. But they will do cricket a huge disservice unless they can publicly demonstrate that Hair was right that the Pakistanis were tampering with the ball. .

I disagree. If the condition of the ball has changed considerably in an over without there being good reason then the umpires may be completely within their rights to consider the ball has been altered deliberately. I completely disagree that they have to produce TV evidence. After all he doesn't have to publicly demonstate that the ball would have hit the stumps for an LBW decision to be given. The umpire has an opinion and that opinion is final.

I do agree that Hair should have spoken/consulted with Pakistan even though he didn't need to according to the law. This is were man management comes into play.
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
I disagree. If the condition of the ball has changed considerably in an over without there being good reason then the umpires may be completely within their rights to consider the ball has been altered deliberately. I completely disagree that they have to produce TV evidence.
No-one will believe that the ball has been tampered with if there isn't any evidence. Especially in Pakistan.
 

West Ealing Bee

Only Reading
Joined
6 Apr 2000
Messages
16,572
Reaction score
0
Location
At the match
The ICC are going through their disciplinary procedures at the moment, as they have to. But they will do cricket a huge disservice unless they can publicly demonstrate that Hair was right that the Pakistanis were tampering with the ball. Either that or hang Hair out to dry. Punishing Inzi will be a PR disaster for the ICC unless they can demonstrate to a disbelieving cricketing public around the world that Hair was right.

I'm all for hanging Hair out to dry but how can they not punish Inzi?

It may be proved the umpire was wrong but umpires are often wrong, admittedly not on this scale but they get things wrong all the time.

He has to be brought to bear for refusing to play.
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,584
Reaction score
12,492
Location
London
No-one will believe that the ball has been tampered with if there isn't any evidence. Especially in Pakistan.

No-one will believe that Strauss should have been given out LBW in the second inning either. That's not the point. Batsmen don't walk anymore :(

If the umpires are inspecting the ball after every over there can be no complaints.
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,584
Reaction score
12,492
Location
London
I'm all for hanging Hair out to dry but how can they not punish Inzi?

It may be proved the umpire was wrong but umpires are often wrong, admittedly not on this scale but they get things wrong all the time.

He has to be brought to bear for refusing to play.
Agreed. Hair will certainly not umpire Pakistan again and perhaps not India or Sri Lanka or even the West Indies again. Perhaps never again.

However Inzi had his protest and then blew it big time.
 

Les Beeavinu

Administrator
Joined
5 Aug 2002
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
5,641
Location
Sandhurst
No-one will believe that the ball has been tampered with if there isn't any evidence. Especially in Pakistan.

What's the alternative? Suspend the game while there's an investigation? If the ball is swinging as a result of tampering and the game is being affected by that, the umpire's job is to call it. That's why they're there and the sacrosant rule in any sport, is that their decision is final.
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
I'm all for hanging Hair out to dry but how can they not punish Inzi?

It may be proved the umpire was wrong but umpires are often wrong, admittedly not on this scale but they get things wrong all the time.

He has to be brought to bear for refusing to play.
Agree that there has to be a punishment for refusing to play, but as for ball-tampering ... well, someone needs to prove it first IMHO.
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,584
Reaction score
12,492
Location
London
Agree that there has to be a punishment for refusing to play, but as for ball-tampering ... well, someone needs to prove it first IMHO.

The umpire's decision is final FFS. Do the umpires need to PROVE that the ball hit the rope to give four runs?
 

West Ealing Bee

Only Reading
Joined
6 Apr 2000
Messages
16,572
Reaction score
0
Location
At the match
Agree that there has to be a punishment for refusing to play,

But that is what Woolmer is on about, if I have read it right.

Bringing the game into disripute is likely to result in a huge punishment for Inzi and Pakistan heading home, as per Woolmer's statement.

The ICC can do nothing else.

IMHO if they ban him for a few games but also fire Hair (and Doctrove) if they can't prove the ball tampering they will have this right.

If they prove the ball tampering then IMHO Inzi should be looking at a long ban.
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
The umpire's decision is final FFS. Do the umpires need to PROVE that the ball hit the rope to give four runs?

The difference with this decision is that it implies that the Pakistanis have been cheating and that's rather different to saying that a batsman did or didn't get an edge to a delivery. If Hair punishes Pakistan for ball tampering, then he must be able to explain what makes him believe they have. If his evidence doesn't stack up, then it would be a disaster for cricket if his decision is upheld.
 

Les Beeavinu

Administrator
Joined
5 Aug 2002
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
5,641
Location
Sandhurst
Do we abandon this law (and perhaps the chucking no-ball one as well) because they're too controversial?
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
But that is what Woolmer is on about, if I have read it right.

Bringing the game into disripute is likely to result in a huge punishment for Inzi and Pakistan heading home, as per Woolmer's statement.

The ICC can do nothing else.
Well, it all hangs on the ball-tampering, doesn't it? If they find against Hair, then they could decide that Inzi was seriously provoked and give him a suspended sentence, which might smooth things over. Woolmer is a fool for "threatening" the ODIs, as the ICC won't take kindly to being blackmailed.
 

West Ealing Bee

Only Reading
Joined
6 Apr 2000
Messages
16,572
Reaction score
0
Location
At the match
Well, it all hangs on the ball-tampering, doesn't it? If they find against Hair, then they could decide that Inzi was seriously provoked and give him a suspended sentence, which might smooth things over.

That sets a dangerous precident IMHO.

I can understand how frustrated and upset Pakistan were but you can't just not play because you are upset with a decision.
However the Hair/ball-tampering thing works out Inzi should be punished IMHO.
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
Darrell Hair wasn't the only one involved in this decision.
It's always Darrell Hair, though, isn't it? Who was it that asked for a video replay to see whether or not Inzi was in his crease when he took evasive action when a ball was thrown at him and hit the stumps in the Test in Pakistan last winter? - oh yes, Darrell Hair again. Who was it who kept no-balling Murali when the rules said that the umpire should report a bowler, rather than no-ball them, if they thought their action was suspect? - oh yes, Darrell Hair again. The man is a walking controversy and I think he gets off on the fact. Doctrove was the junior umpire and it was clear that he wasn't the instigator of the tampering decision.
 

Ronan

Active member
Joined
5 May 2005
Messages
5,935
Reaction score
0
Controversy means talk. Talk means press. Press means profile. Profile means interest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom