Why were Waqar Younis & Azhar Mahmood punished?

[Sanz]

Vaughan is entitled to his opinion, and he has already shown himself to be quite keen to make inflammatory comments out of left field about various matters (eg Jonathan Trott saying hello to Paul Harris after a Test match in 2008). On this, he's just got it wrong. When I first heard Vaughan talking about this on the radio, I thought the Anderson footage would be very ugly indeed. Then you actually watch it, and it's absolutely nothing.

Anyhow that's probably enough from me on this today. Sorry for being the CW Bore again.

I complete agree with you, Vaughan is so out of line here. As the inventors of the game, No Englishman should ever be punished for ball tampering even if the evidence is there.

Yes there is really nothing in the video, neither in Anderson's nor in Broad's.And you are so right about Tendulkar caught lifting the seam, Man I hate it when you are so right, Tendulkar was caught blatantly lifting the seam.

Overall, I am just pleased at your consistent view on the issue in this thread. It is really admirable.

 

[zaremba]

YouTube - Anderson - Ball Tampering?

If you look at 0:11th second in the video, you can see that Anderson scratches the ball near the seam before proceeding to remove the little piece of leather that is extruding in the ball. That doesn't convince me that he was totally innocent. I don't mind it btw. Everyone should be allowed to do it.

Yes but he applies absolutely no pressure to it. I've fiddled with a lot of balls in my time (ooh vicar!) and I assure you, you won't change the condition of the ball by doing what he does. Compare the footage from 1992 which I posted, where the experts () really get stuck into the ball.

Anderson by contrast seems to be almost absent-mindedly toying with it. And he's making no effort at all to hide what he's doing either: he's holding the ball out in front of him, in clear view. Again compare the footage from 1992.

 

[Shri]

Yes but he applies absolutely no pressure to it. I've fiddled with a lot of balls in my time (ooh vicar!)

Anderson by contrast seems to be almost absent-mindedly toying with it. And he's making no effort at all to hide what he's doing either: he's holding the ball out in front of him, in clear view. Again compare the footage from 1992.

Maybe he planned that act out(scratching it in the open hey I can make a funny to) to avoid suspicion and play the 'absent minded' card.

 

[Sanz]

Why Waqar Younis was Guilty

 

[Sanz]

Why Waqar was Guilty - Part 2

 

[zaremba]

I complete agree with you, Vaughan is so out of line here. As the inventors of the game, No Englishman should ever be punished for ball tampering even if the evidence is there.

Ah, the race / nationality card. How tedious. The truth is that no-one likes their own players to be accused of this, but we all have our cheats (JK Lever and to a lesser extent MA Atherton both spring to mind) and if there is the evidence I'm happy for them to be punished. The thing is, the evidence against Anderson and Broad is at best inconclusive.

And you are so right about Tendulkar caught lifting the seam, Man I hate it when you are so right, Tendulkar was caught blatantly lifting the seam.

I haven't seen the footage, I wasn't even aware of the incident, and was simply going by what others have posted in this thread. If someone wants to suggest that he was wrongly convicted, well let's see the evidence. If he was indeed wrongly convicted, then it's not a precedent that should be used to convict anyone else, don't you think?

Overall, I am just pleased at your consistent view on the issue in this thread. It is really admirable.

Dire.

 

[Sanz]

Personally, I don't think the cases are the same at all. Tendulkar was found guilty of raising the seam on the ball. Now, I agree that Jimmy Anderson should have passed the ball to the umpire in order to get the umpire to remove the flap of leather with his little scissors. But no matter how nicely Tendulkar asked, no umpire would ever have agreed to lift the seam on the ball for him.

Could you please share the footage where you saw Tendulkar was found lifting the seam. I am yet to see it.

 

[zaremba]

Maybe he planned that act out(scratching it in the open hey I can make a funny to) to avoid suspicion and play the 'absent minded' card.

Could be. TBH I've no idea what he was trying to achieve. But reverse swing seems unlikely. A bottle top, yes, a gouging with a thumb nail, yes, but a gentle caress with his fingernail?

 

[silentstriker]

Hmm, inconclusive evidence. I wonder when else in recent memory there was no conclusive evidence.....

 

[Sanz]

I haven't seen the footage, I wasn't even aware of the incident, and was simply going by what others have posted in this thread. If someone wants to suggest that he was wrongly convicted, well let's see the evidence. If he was indeed wrongly convicted, then it's not a precedent that should be used to convict anyone else, don't you think.

If you have not seen the footage of Tendulkar then I would say that you please stop making things up and saying stuff like "Tendulkar was punished for lifting the seam" and "no matter how nicely he asked no umpire would lift seam for him".

Please see the footage first and then make statements on the basis of that. Don't say stuff on the basis of hearsay. And if you find the footage of Tendulkar lifting the seam, please do share it. I would love to see it.

 

[zaremba]

Could you please share the footage where you saw Tendulkar was found lifting the seam. I am yet to see it.

The Tendulkar incident was raised by someone else (Jono I think), suggesting that it was comparable with Anderson's case and that, consistently with the Tendulkar case, Anderson should be given precisely the same penalty. I have assumed, for the sake of argument, that his account of what happened in Tendulkar's case is accurate, and I have sought to show why the two cases aren't the same.

As I've explained, I've not seen the Tendulkar footage and nor was I even aware of the case until this thread began. If it turns out that Tendulkar was never banned or never found guilty of lifting the seam, hallelujah, I'd be as happy as you would be.

 

[zaremba]

If you have not seen the footage of Tendulkar then I would say that you please stop making things up and saying stuff like "Tendulkar was punished for lifting the seam" and "no matter how nicely he asked no umpire would lift seam for him".

Please see the footage first and then make statements on the basis of that. Don't say stuff on the basis of hearsay. And if you find the footage of Tendulkar lifting the seam, please do share it. I would love to see it.

My, we are precious aren't we?

Well he was certainly banned. . The ban I think was subsequently lifted. Hooray! We can all go home happily.

Personally I couldn't give a toss what Tendulkar did, I was simply responding to Jono's point that the cases of Anderson and Tendulkar were comparable. And if the ban on Tendulkar was overturned, then to use his case as a precedent against Anderson seems to make even less sense.

 

[Sanz]

Ah, the race / nationality card. How tedious.

Yeah it is okay to call ICC Pro-Pakistan when there is no such thing exists. but when I say the same ICC for not taking action against england I am playing the nationality card. Really very consistent of you.

The truth is that no-one likes their own players to be accused of this, but we all have our cheats (JK Lever and to a lesser extent MA Atherton both spring to mind) and if there is the evidence I'm happy for them to be punished. The thing is, the evidence against Anderson and Broad is at best inconclusive.

Speak for yourself. I couldn't care about the nationality of the player. For me if they are guilty, they should be punished. And for once you are right, we all have our cheats but to say that you are a bigger cheat than us or when you cheat, it is a bigger crime and when we cheat it is not as big a crime is what I call double standards and for me that is the issue here.

It is okay to think that 'Anderson and Broad's' Ball tampering footage are inconclusive, but to say that Tendulkar was found lifting the seam (over and over again) without even seeing the footage is what I call inconsistency.

Dire.

I usually am.

 

[zaremba]

Hmm, inconclusive evidence. I wonder when else in recent memory there was no conclusive evidence.....

Not sure what you're on about here mate. But if your point is that we should start taking disciplinary action against people on the basis of inconclusive evidence, I beg to differ.

 

[social]

Can honestly say that I dont know anyone that HAS NOT tampered with the ball in some way whether that be picking the seam, rubbing sweat mixed with sunscreen into the ball to get a better shine etc

EVERYONE DOES IT!

The only reason I defended Hair was because:

a. Technically he was correct; and

b. The Pakistani reaction (forfeit and racial insinsuations) was a disgrace

IMO, the Saffies have behaved disgracefully here and the laws need to be clarified

 

[zaremba]

Yeah it is okay to call ICC Pro-Pakistan when there is no such thing exists. but when I say the same ICC for not taking action against england I am playing the nationality card. Really very consistent of you.

Sorry, let me spell this out.

I WAS NOT BEING ENTIRELY SERIOUS.

Sorry to have confused you.
I promise not to do it again.

It is okay to think that 'Anderson and Broad's' Ball tampering footage are inconclusive, but to say that Tendulkar was found lifting the seam (over and over again) without even seeing the footage is what I call inconsistency.

As I have explained, I was responding to Jono's point, and accepting his version of the facts for the sake of argument. Again, sorry to have confused you.

 

[Shri]

The Saffies played it smart imo. I don't care whether it was good or bad, but it sure was a sure fire way to get the opponents agitated ahead of the next test. Well played Abdv.

 

[Sanz]

Well he was certainly banned. .

Ehh Old chicken and egg argument here. That's what some folks are arguing here. That Tendulkar was banned automatically means he was guilty and since Anderson wasn't punished would mean he was not guilty.

 

[silentstriker]

Not sure what you're on about here mate. But if your point is that we should start taking disciplinary action against people on the basis of inconclusive evidence, I beg to differ.

Just pointing out a big furor over a pretty big issue that was based on completely inconclusive evidence and no video footage with a ball that experts said looked like a normal ball of that age.

 

[zaremba]

The Saffies played it smart imo. I don't care whether it was good or bad, but it sure was a sure fire way to get the opponents agitated ahead of the next test. Well played Abdv.

Except that he did it during the Test... a Test which England then proceeded to escape from with a draw