Ball-Tampering Hearing

[social]

noticed that you didn't specify what parts of these arguments can be "pulled to pieces"....easy enough to make expansive bullcrap remarks....

1. Madugalle refers to the change in condition of the ball between the 52nd and 56th over

Has no basis for his assertions as umpires were the only ones that inspected the balls at both these times

2. Madugalle refers to the fact that no third part provided evidence of ball tampering

Irrelevant - not required under the rules

3. Madugalle make reference to "expert" witnesses such as Boycott and Hughes

"Experts in what?" one may well ask

4. Madugalle makes reference to what he thinks was a more prudent course of action

May be right BUT totally irrelevant as the umpires were acting within their rights

5. No reference was made during the hearing to Afridi's (that paragon of virtue) admission of systematic ball-tampering within the Pakistani team

Persuasive or irrelevant - let the jury decide folks

9. No mention was made of the 8 (that's EIGHT, V111, 11111111, 9 -1, etc) previous occasions that Pakistan had been warned for ball-tampering

Persuasive or irrelevant - let the jury decide folks


Case closed

 

[social]

The time for Hair to appeal is over, right? I thought you only had 24 hours.

Deal's been done - wont happen

 

[Scaly piscine]

You missed out 6, 7 and 8 there social.

By the way with regards to comments like this:

"Pakistan who have just been spitefully wrongly charged with Cheating"

They were found not guilty, they were not found or proven to be innocent of the charge which you seem to be taking for granted.

 

[Fusion]

By the way with regards to comments like this:

"Pakistan who have just been spitefully wrongly charged with Cheating"

They were found not guilty, they were not found or proven to be innocent of the charge which you seem to be taking for granted.

Hey genius, being found "not guilty" means by definition that you're innocent of the charges!!! That's what "being found not guilty" has meant for centuries. But of course since in this case the "innocent" party was Pakistan, you want to change the definition itself. Pathetic.

 

[Anil]

1. Madugalle refers to the change in condition of the ball between the 52nd and 56th over

Has no basis for his assertions as umpires were the only ones that inspected the balls at both these times

...while hair of course had solid basis for his conviction that the ball had indeed been tampered with...which he then proceeded to prove conclusively....

2. Madugalle refers to the fact that no third part provided evidence of ball tampering

Irrelevant - not required under the rules

if such a narrow interpretation of the rules can always be enforced, an umpire's assumption is always the only proof required, there is never any need of an enquiry like this...by the way how many other umpires that you know of enforce this kind of a rule without sufficient visual evidence other than the right hon. hair?

3. Madugalle make reference to "expert" witnesses such as Boycott and Hughes

"Experts in what?" one may well ask

well...hair has been shown to be not too much of an expert himself...to put it mildly...

4. Madugalle makes reference to what he thinks was a more prudent course of action

May be right BUT totally irrelevant as the umpires were acting within their rights

that is utter crap..."acting with their rights" isn't always the right thing to do...in this case, he has been shown as abusing the power granted to him....

5. No reference was made during the hearing to Afridi's (that paragon of virtue) admission of systematic ball-tampering within the Pakistani team

Persuasive or irrelevant - let the jury decide folks

did he say that there was ball-tampering during this test? if not, it is totally irrelevant to the situation....

9. No mention was made of the 8 (that's EIGHT, V111, 11111111, 9 -1, etc) previous occasions that Pakistan had been warned for ball-tampering

Persuasive or irrelevant - let the jury decide folks

i think the pcb president mentioned their past difficulties with hair and the fact that they hadn't wanted him to umpire their games, since something that they had feared happened, that was actually relevant to the situation...

Case closed

not quite....

 

[silentstriker]

You missed out 6, 7 and 8 there social.

By the way with regards to comments like this:

"Pakistan who have just been spitefully wrongly charged with Cheating"

They were found not guilty, they were not found or proven to be innocent of the charge which you seem to be taking for granted.

What the hell? In what system of justice do you have to prove your innocence? Not guilty = innocent.

 

[marc71178]

If Hair followed Doctrove's advice or even just changed the ball without Calling Pakistan "Cheaters" by docking them 5 runs this matter would have been no big deal at all.

And under the laws, how exactly could he justify not deducting the 5 runs if he felt it had gone on?

 

[marc71178]

What punishment did Doctrove recieve or did he recieve nothing for his part in the ball tampering issue?

That of being the least talked about umpire in World Cricket?

 

[marc71178]

Nope, if they want him real bad for the CT they can appeal now and then have the ban enforced during the Windies games, when they may not need him so much.

And risk missing him for more than the 4 games?

Does anyone know if he has to be named in the squad for those games to count?

 

[marc71178]

And if Hair and Doctrove can say if the condition of the ball has been altered or not, so can Madugalle, Boycott and Hughes.

How exactly can 3 people, 1 of whom was in Asia and 2 of whom were in the stands say if the condition has been altered though?

One thing Hughes did mention was "a number of slightly curved striations concentrated on one area. I concluded that those could have been man-made scratches, but there was no way I could be sure."

Without seeing these striations (whatever one of them actually is!) we have to take his word for it, but the curved suggests that it's unlikely to be from natural wear and tear, especially if there are a few of them in the one place.

Of course, without seeing other balls from other Tests we also have nothing to compare the striations with either.

 

[marc71178]

The very same guy, who tried to get a pay off from his bosses

Got stitched up by them don't you mean?

 

[marc71178]

Good point. And yes I can't imagine Hair suspiciously turning around to closely watch McGrath or Flintoff working on the ball as he did with the Pak bowlers at the Oval.

Of course he can't do that to McGrath - he can't umpire him!

 

[marc71178]

Actually, by legal standards, Inzy got the rough end of the stick.
For in legal precedence, if the main charge is thrown out (as was the case againt Inzy), the secondary charge are almost invariably dropped completely.

Didn't the disrepute charge carry a bigger penalty though?

 

[C_C]

Why do u think Pakistan arent appealing?

Deal done before the hearing or they realise Inzy got off light - your choice

Or perhaps if you opened your mind a little bit more, you'd realise that this way is simply so much better- prevents a scandal, a controversial figure is sidelined and a lot of trouble saved.
Oh gee. would i take a little bit of undeserved inconvinience to avert a soap-opera style stuff and see the back of an incompetent(and/or biassed) dude.
Like..its..so..hard..a..decision..to..make.

 

[marc71178]

One team wasn't ready to play because of the rash actions of one of the umpires

Both umpires, and they were perfectly happy to play on for almost an hour before the suits got onto them...

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Of course he can't do that to McGrath - he can't umpire him!

 

[C_C]

Didn't the disrepute charge carry a bigger penalty though?

Dont think being a jerk is as contemptable in ICC's eyes as being a dishonest scoundrell...so i do think that ball-tampering was far more the central issue here.

 

[Matt79]

Insignificant point in the eyes of most, but a finding that there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt does not equate to a find of 'innocent'. It just means that the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. Ask OJ Simpson.

That said, Hair should have had enough nous to realise he'd need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his allegations, and should have arranged to have things documented better. I reckon if he felt it was going on, talk to Inzi, say he's concerned, but not yet making an allegation, and start getting the ball photographed after every couple of overs, to document whether any 'improvements' are being made. Although it's possible that IF altering had occurred, by then it might not have needed any further improvement. But at least you'd either put a stop to the behaviour or put yourself in a position to sustain your allegation.

 

[C_C]

Any first year lawyer could pull these arguments to pieces so it'll be interesting to see whether Hair appeals.

Yet again- conclusions without the representation of any coherent thought and logical process from you. Oh gee. like i am not surprised. The way you approach this, i gotta ask : Are you Mr. Hair ? Coz no one else is as blind to the facts and as hell-bent on twisting it as you are.

 

[C_C]

1. Madugalle refers to the change in condition of the ball between the 52nd and 56th over

Has no basis for his assertions as umpires were the only ones that inspected the balls at both these times

So ? Madugalle himself is well versed and experienced in the conditions expected of a ball to make an independent judgement on the issue once all the facts are provided.

2. Madugalle refers to the fact that no third part provided evidence of ball tampering

Irrelevant - not required under the rules

Most certainly relevant if your very credibility is being challenged.

3. Madugalle make reference to "expert" witnesses such as Boycott and Hughes

"Experts in what?" one may well ask

Playing cricket, familiarity with the ball - to a far far greater depth than Hair i would imagine. If one of the most accomplished batsmen of all time and an international bowler of significant career states otherwise, an umpire's conclusions on the ball can most definately be challenged.
This is not a question of whether an umpire CAN be challenged- it is a question of whether the umpire DID or DID NOT bollox up.