The Biggest Disgrace?

[Cruxdude]

Okay, what about when the umpires referred Nathan Hauritz's catch at Lord's and gave it not-out? That implies that Hauritz is a cheat, because it was a catch that he had claimed.

Did the Australians walk off? No, because you don't do that in professional sport. You stand there and take the umpire's decision. You let him do his job and you get on with yours. Period.

Latif was banned for claiming a catch he didn't take. That was because he cheated. Here no one including the fielder who takes the catch knows for sure if the catch was clean. Your continued arguing of this by comparing with so silly a case really makes this debate pointless.

 

[marc71178]

I think they were right in their protests. Daryl Hair was pompous enough to believe that he can conclusively say it is ball tampering with out looking at any footage.

The thing about this is that only 2 people ever saw the only evidence that can conclusively prove why they were accused. The 2 umpires saw the condition of the ball before AND after the alleged incident - based on that they made the call.

Since nobody else has knowledge of the state of the ball before the period when it happened, they can't disprove anything.

 

[Uppercut]

Don't think an umpire saying "in my professional opinion, you were ball-tampering" is any different from him saying, "in my professional opinion, Mr. Hauritz, you just claimed a grounded catch". He did discuss it with the other standing umpire, who fully agreed.

What about when a footballer is fouled in the penalty area but is booked for diving? He's being labelled a cheat. Why doesn't he walk off the pitch in disgust?

 

[Cruxdude]

The thing about this is that only 2 people ever saw the only evidence that can conclusively prove why they were accused. The 2 umpires saw the condition of the ball before AND after the alleged incident - based on that they made the call.

Since nobody else has knowledge of the state of the ball before the period when it happened, they can't disprove anything.

Ball tampering being such a serious issue, accusing without video evidence is pretty daft. As Inzi mentioned at that time, KP or someone had just hit a couple of 6's into the concrete. This doesn't constitute proof. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Cruxdude]

Don't think an umpire saying "in my professional opinion, you were ball-tampering" is any different from him saying, "in my professional opinion, Mr. Hauritz, you just claimed a grounded catch". He did discuss it with the other standing umpire, who fully agreed.

What about when a footballer is fouled in the penalty area but is booked for diving? He's being labelled a cheat. Why doesn't he walk off the pitch in disgust?

We have had court cases about ball tampering that should amke it clear to you that acting on such flimsy reasons is grounds for protests.

The thing with diving in football is that it is a very rampant practice and there are video proofs of such stuff in every other match. Ball tampering in cricket was rampant in the 90's not now. This is similar to the racial abuse case. Havce concrete proof before proceeding.

 

[Pratters]

Pakistan agreed to come back but the umpires said the game had already been forfeited. That's when common sense gave way. Greater interest of the game must have been thought of and the game should have continued.

As it was, Pakistan was in a winning position. Common sense from their side meant they should have played on and addressed the issue later.

No one used any common sense IMO and followed the rule book rather than where the larger interest of the game lied.

 

[marc71178]

Ball tampering being such a serious issue, accusing without video evidence is pretty daft. As Inzi mentioned at that time, KP or someone had just hit a couple of 6's into the concrete. This doesn't constitute proof. Innocent until proven guilty.

The sixes came after the penalty - so not relevant.

From reviewing the match, it seems that the period between them last checking the ball and the penalty was a maximum of 25 balls, in which just one boundary was scored.

The umpires called for the ball, so there must've been a reason for that - as likewise there must've been a reason for them to make the call, lets face it, it's not one you make lightly so they must've had some sort of reasoning - but like I say, the cannot prove it just as equally it cannot be disproven. In addition, that passage of play didn't contain anything that might've caused the damage on the ball without wilful intervention.

 

[Uppercut]

This is similar to the racial abuse case.

!!!

HERE'S the problem. You think cheating in a game of cricket to gain a possible slight advantage while bowling is the same as insulting someone based on the colour of their skin.

Ha, no wonder you guys get so cranky about it.

 

[Cruxdude]

The sixes came after the penalty - so not relevant.

From reviewing the match, it seems that the period between them checking the ball and the penalty was a maximum of 25 balls, in which just one boundary was scored.

The umpires called for the ball, so there must've been a reason for that - as likewise there must've been a reason for them to make the call, lets face it, it's not one you make lightly so they must've had some sort of reasoning - but like I say, the cannot prove it just as equally it cannot be disproven.

My point is that when you make that big an accusation you need more proof than I feel the ball has deteriorated a lot. Being such an experienced umpire and knowing that it is a touchy issue he could have and should have shown restraint. I am no Pakistan supporter but I felt this was poorly handled by the umpires.

 

[archie mac]

It is interesting and very obvious that most people have voted for Betting Scandal (Mr Cronje) as the biggest disgrace. But to me Ian chappell's act was more disgrace as an individual than whole betting saga, as there were many people involved in fixing saga, players from India/Pakistan/SA and arguably players from other teams too, so addressing that and labelling it as Cronje's saga is not entirely correct.

Where as the Under arm incident is more disgraceful as in that case one indvidual who is a veteran of many years of international cricket, knew the spirit of the game, knew the emotions attached to NZ/AUS cricket, took the decision in front of house full of people at MCG is more disgraceful than any act carried out in a cricket field

I am sure it was just a typo, but it should be Greg Chappell

 

[Cruxdude]

!!!

HERE'S the problem. You think cheating in a game of cricket to gain a possible slight advantage while bowling is the same as insulting someone based on the colour of their skin.

Ha, no wonder you guys get so cranky about it.

Whatever you say, a team being labelled cheaters is pretty insulting and as for that case you need proof to make such a serious allegation. I put the cases together to show the need for proof (the point which got Bhajji out).

 

[Pratters]

Lol such a big difference between the disgrace that is Greg Chappell and Ian Chappell

 

[marc71178]

My point is that when you make that big an accusation you need more proof than I feel the ball has deteriorated a lot. Being such an experienced umpire and knowing that it is a touchy issue he could have and should have shown restraint. I am no Pakistan supporter but I felt this was poorly handled by the umpires.

Oh, I don't think there's any debate that it was poorly handled, but the problem is the only proof that could exist was by the nature of the incident destroyed - and like I say, they must've been convinced to make such a call, as it was so unprecedented, which suggests to me that maybe there was a problem that they felt needed addressing, and a simple "word in the ear" wasn't deemed enough.

 

[archie mac]

Lol such a big difference between the disgrace that is Greg Chappell and Ian Chappell

Hey I am just stopping CW from copping a law suit

 

[zaremba]

Daryl Hair was pompous enough to believe that he can conclusively say it is ball tampering with out looking at any footage. I don't find any relation between them not being angels and this episode. The fact of the matter is Hair had no proof other than his beliefs and had no grounds to do as he did. He was right to be criticized. His poor man management skills where the sole reason for the match being abandoned.

It's funny that Billy Doctrove doesn't ever seem to get accused of pompousness or poor man-management skills (or racism, of which some people in high places in Pakistan cricket accused Daryl Hair) despite being equally responsible for the joint decisions he and Hair together took on the pitch at the Oval.

 

[Uppercut]

Let alone the accusations of racism.

 

[Migara]

you can give the benefit of the doubt for a one off incident. But being a serial offender is another matter.

 

[amokk1]

Ajit Agarkar.

 

[zaremba]

you can give the benefit of the doubt for a one off incident. But being a serial offender is another matter.

A serial offender? Because he dared to call Murali for throwing and then to pick up on what he and Billy Doctrove both believed to be ball tampering? Give me a break. Even if he was in the wrong in these (and other) incidents, what does that prove? That he's a racist? All umpires make mistakes repeatedly, and in that sense are "serial offenders".

The allegations of racism casually thrown around about Hair were, and remain, baseless and disgusting.

For instance, the fact that he called Murali had nothing to do with the appearance of his skin and everything to do with the appearance of his bowling action.

 

[Migara]

Touche.

Hair was alleged of racially discriminating (without demonstrable evidence) against Asian teams. If Pakistan can be labelled ball tamperers withiut demonstrable evidence same can be applied about Hair.

Having said that Pakistan is also serial offrnders of ball tampering. basically it's meering of two parties who are utterly disgusting.