England v Pakistan 4th Test, The Oval

Status
Not open for further replies.

The H

poker semi-professional
Joined
4 Apr 2000
Messages
22,734
Reaction score
1
Location
South Ealing
BBC website said:
The England and Wales Cricket Board confirmed England coach Duncan Fletcher went to see match referee Mike Procter before play was due to resume.

But it said Procter was not there and nothing was discussed, although the third and fourth umpires were present.

"There were no complaints lodged about anything," said an ECB spokesman.
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
Pakistan are asking for the result to be changed to "no result" from an England victory. Can't see that happening to be honest. I think there's scope for the ball-tampering accusations not to be confirmed and by implication Pakistan to be absolved of the suggestion that they cheated. But the forfeiture for refusal to play and the match being awarded to England, resulting in the disrepute charge is going to be impossible to swerve. The only question is the size of the penalty IMHO.
 

Jezybee

Reassuringly Expensive
Joined
12 Jan 2001
Messages
2,707
Reaction score
2
Location
Chester
I hope they do change the result as the bookies are paying out on an England 3-0 series win, however, if the result is changed they will have to pay out on a 2-0 win aswell.
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,585
Reaction score
12,495
Location
London
I hope they do change the result as the bookies are paying out on an England 3-0 series win, however, if the result is changed they will have to pay out on a 2-0 win aswell.

No they won't - they don't HAVE to do anything.
 

Russell

Active member
Joined
15 Feb 2001
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
0
Location
Caravan site
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?

I've no idea, do you? However it seems reasonable to me that if you are accused of something then there needs to be more evidence than the opinion of Mr Hair and a few blemishes on the ball which could also be as a result of Pieterson repeatedly smacking the thing into the stands.

Put it another way though, unless it is proven, and Inzamam decided to sue to for defamation of character or some similar issue, how would it stand up in a court of law? He and his team are accused of cheating, I don't know whether they did or didn't but I do know I haven't seen enough evidence that would let me convict them as charged.

Innocent until proven guilty isn't it?
 
Last edited:

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,585
Reaction score
12,495
Location
London
So does a referee have to prove a player dived? It seems reasonable to me that if you are accused of something then there needs to be more evidence than the opinion of the referee and a someone falling over could be a touch or a trip over his shoelaces (p.s. that ball NEVER got hit for 6)

Put it another way though, unless it is proven, and the "diving" player decided to sue to for defamation of character or some similar issue, how would it stand up in a court of law? He and his team are accused of cheating, I don't know whether they did or didn't but I do know I haven't seen enough evidence that would let me convict them as charged.

Innocent until proven guilty isn't it?
 

Russell

Active member
Joined
15 Feb 2001
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
0
Location
Caravan site
So does a referee have to prove a player dived? It seems reasonable to me that if you are accused of something then there needs to be more evidence than the opinion of the referee and a someone falling over could be a touch or a trip over his shoelaces (p.s. that ball NEVER got hit for 6)

Put it another way though, unless it is proven, and the "diving" player decided to sue to for defamation of character or some similar issue, how would it stand up in a court of law? He and his team are accused of cheating, I don't know whether they did or didn't but I do know I haven't seen enough evidence that would let me convict them as charged.

Innocent until proven guilty isn't it?

As John Arnott used to say, "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...." :rolleyes:
 

jmcp

INVALID EMAIL
Joined
12 Jul 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
As a side issue does anyone else think that a 5 run penalty to the other team is quite a lame punishment for 'ball tampering'. I dont see it as equivalent to the ball hitting a helmet which the fielding team have at there own risk left lying on the pitch.
 

Jezybee

Reassuringly Expensive
Joined
12 Jan 2001
Messages
2,707
Reaction score
2
Location
Chester
If the penalty were three hundred runs it may act as more of a deterrent and could be justified as a tampered swinging ball could remove an entire batting lineup very rapidly. For a fine of such enormity to be imposed there would have to be conculsive television proof.
 

jmcp

INVALID EMAIL
Joined
12 Jul 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Yeah but Pakistan have done that through their own choice, had they just accepted it, they would have just lost 5 runs and stood a good chance of winning the match. Had they done and won the game, would that have been fair?
it isn't much of a detterant for teams in the future either is it 5 runs?
 

Russell

Active member
Joined
15 Feb 2001
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
0
Location
Caravan site
If the allegation of ball tampering is proven, then in the context of the game I think a 5 run penalty is a tad light. Banning captain Inzamam for 8 matches may be a deterrent but I've read that is the possible punishment for not taking the field when required, not for tampering with the ball. I don't know if the laws of cricket allow anything more than a 5 run penalty. Where's Stedders when we need him?!

I remember some time during the 90's Wasim Akram did a tv piece (I think with Bumble) on reverse swing. He took a cricket ball, raked one side of it so badly the leather was almost gone and the other side was left intact. It was then given to a bowler (no idea who he was) who tried to reverse swing with it. He couldn't, no matter what he tried. The conclusion was reverse swing wasn't caused by either usual wear and tear on a cricket ball or extreme tampering. It was down to the skill of the bowler.
 

nocoat

King of the Geeks
Joined
19 Jan 2001
Messages
49,684
Reaction score
3,380
Location
No longer my beloved NAM
As a side issue does anyone else think that a 5 run penalty to the other team is quite a lame punishment for 'ball tampering'. I dont see it as equivalent to the ball hitting a helmet which the fielding team have at there own risk left lying on the pitch.


I bet you only learnt that the other day in the Observer? ;) :fishing:
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
Surely the punishment has been foreiting game ?
No. That was the punishment for refusing to play. They were only punished five runs for the ball tampering. Given a 331 run first innings lead, it's not much of a deterrent, is it? 50 runs might be more appropriate.
 

The H

poker semi-professional
Joined
4 Apr 2000
Messages
22,734
Reaction score
1
Location
South Ealing
i think Woolmer's losing the plot

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/5277488.stm

"I'd allow bowlers to use anything that naturally appears on the cricket field," he continued.

"They could rub the ball on the ground, pick the seam, scratch it with their nails - anything that allows the ball to move off the seam to make it less of a batsman's game."

"Every single bowler I know from the time I played in 1968 to 1984 was guilty, at least under the current law, of some sort of ball-changing," Woolmer added.

"If you haven't played the game, like a lot of the umpires haven't, they don't know these things."
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
Well the ODIs will go ahead as the disciplinary hearing has been postponed indefinitely due to some personal issues that Ranjan Madugalle has to deal with.

Convenient, but probably wise.
 

PJ

Active member
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
5,776
Reaction score
297
Location
Lowestoft
Well the ODIs will go ahead as the disciplinary hearing has been postponed indefinitely due to some personal issues that Ranjan Madugalle has to deal with.

This will be just to safeguard the ODIs and is purely a financial decision IMHO. Six or seven ODIs and a 20-20 game, probably all sold out, plus huge TV revenue = £millions :wave:
The hearing will probably be a week after the tour has ended :idea:
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
Five ODIs. Sensible decision to postpone it. The world of cricket needs to take a deep breath before it decides on the next step and the break will help everyone calm down a bit.
 

PJ

Active member
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
5,776
Reaction score
297
Location
Lowestoft
Five ODIs. Sensible decision to postpone it. The world of cricket needs to take a deep breath before it decides on the next step and the break will help everyone calm down a bit.


BTW its a bit strange that Inzi appears to be the only one in hot water over this :scratch:
Abbas and Woolmer must have been in the loop lol :wave:
 

jmcp

INVALID EMAIL
Joined
12 Jul 2005
Messages
837
Reaction score
0
Surely the atmosphere in these ODI's will be a bit spicy though. The minute Inzi comes to the crease our wicketkeeper and close fielders should be winding him up as much as possible.
 

Jimbee

Who's the dummy?
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
16,264
Reaction score
1
Location
In suspended animation
Well the ODIs will go ahead as the disciplinary hearing has been postponed indefinitely due to some personal issues that Ranjan Madugalle has to deal with.

Convenient, but probably wise.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257658.html

Abbas, however, offered another different view: "There was an opinion we should ask the ICC to have the hearing before the one-day series to close this issue but since both boards have agreed on having Ranjan Madugalle as the adjudicator it has been decided to wait until he is available. Madugalle's sister has had a serious accident and the reasons for postponing the hearing are genuine."

For all the conspiracy theorists. :wave:
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,585
Reaction score
12,495
Location
London
I was going to refer to this earlier but couldn't be bothered to search for the relevant thread.

Anyway, this is a bizarre decision (if it happens!) to say the least!
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,585
Reaction score
12,495
Location
London
:imwith:

I sincerely hope that if England look like losing in India this winter they refuse to come out and claim a draw.

That appears to be how it works, doesn't it :shrug:

You have to be accused of ball tampering first - so a little advanced planning will be required. Sand in the pocket perhaps. Or maybe lots of chewing gum not sugar free of course), and an bottle top of two.
 

Banana

Very, very seldomly incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
79,585
Reaction score
12,495
Location
London
Check out the match details and then tell me that you think Pakistan looked like losing that match.

When Hair asked the batsmen if they were ready to play and the Pakistan team were still in their dressing room :sorted:
 

West Ealing Bee

Only Reading
Joined
6 Apr 2000
Messages
16,572
Reaction score
0
Location
At the match
Check out the match details and then tell me that you think Pakistan looked like losing that match.

I know the details of the match, I have no need to look them up.

However what is to say England wouldn't have added another 200 won the match on the final afternoon :)

Given the precident the ICC have set who would arbitrate the difference between a team taking umbrage at an umpiring decision and a team who were just trying to avoid defeat?
 

Les Beeavinu

Administrator
Joined
5 Aug 2002
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
5,641
Location
Sandhurst
The precedent I'm concerned about is questioning the rule of the officials without sanction.
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
I know the details of the match, I have no need to look them up.

However what is to say England wouldn't have added another 200 won the match on the final afternoon :)
Nothing, but Pakistan did not look like losing the match at tea on Day 4 - quite the reverse.

West Ealing Bee said:
Given the precident the ICC have set who would arbitrate the difference between a team taking umbrage at an umpiring decision and a team who were just trying to avoid defeat?
The match referee, presumably. I don't think what you are suggesting is likely to happen.

None of this need have happened if Darrell Hair had been prepared to allow the match to continue, as both captains wished, with his insistence (that I have never seen explained) that his decision to award the match to England, which had not been announced to anyone other than the teams and officials, was not reversible. Or indeed had he not punished Pakistan 5 penalty runs for ball tampering - a claim that was not found to be adequately supported by evidence, when it was later investigated. :fishing:
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
Has Pakistan been sanctioned? Isn't cricket a team sport?
The rules on this kind of thing are pretty clear that it's the captain who takes the rap - like Collingwood is currently. As a team Pakistan suffered the sanction of having to play without their best batsman. (Anyway, it was Inzi who's decision it was to protest by staying in the dressing room, so why shouldn't it be him who gets punished?)
 

Les Beeavinu

Administrator
Joined
5 Aug 2002
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
5,641
Location
Sandhurst
The rules on this kind of thing are pretty clear that it's the captain who takes the rap - like Collingwood is currently. As a team Pakistan suffered the sanction of having to play without their best batsman. (Anyway, it was Inzi who's decision it was to protest by staying in the dressing room, so why shouldn't it be him who gets punished?)

There were no rules for this kind of thing. It's never happened before. However, the rule now appears to be that if you dislike an official decision and you refuse to play, your captain will get the same punishment that he would for a slow over rate and the match will be declared a draw.

A dangerous precedent, as I said.
 

Edmundo

Whinging pom
Joined
5 Apr 2000
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
1,241
Location
Alexandria, NSW, Australia
So now we have moved on from "without sanction" to a sanction that you deem to be insufficient.

I really don't think we're going to see a rash of captains refusing to carry on, "just because they're losing" - and if we do, then the game is well and truly ****ed anyway.

I don't think the result should be changed to "draw" - but perhaps to "abandoned - incomplete" rather than "England win", as England did nothing to deserve winning it anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom