Ball-Tampering Hearing

[IndianByHeart]

The only people who saw the ball close up at the game are the two umpires and some of the Pakistan lot. It's hardly a stretch to think that the ICC (bent as a nine bob note to start with), PCB and the two umpires could have done a deal (Hair was after a settlement anyway and didn't look too unhappy from the pictures I've seen) and so switched the ball - that's all that was required because Boycott and the rest will give their honest opinion on a perfectly normal (and different) cricket ball. Anyone who denies that this could have happened is living in cloud ****oo land.

Not only some refuse to get educated but also refuse to grow up with time

 

[IndianByHeart]

Geez u talk nonsense

Madugalle had absolutely no knowledge of what caused the ball to deteriorate or at what rate it deteriorated because he was x000 kms away at the time. Therefore, unlike the umpires' in question, his opinion is uniformed speculation at best.

Unfortunately, the umpires made a decision in accordance with the law and in full knowledge that the team in question had been warned on numerous previous occasions - therefore no more leniency

Hughes and Boycott have more knowledge than the umpires - are you serious? It's the umpires job to study the condition of the ball and they do it for umpteen thousand deliveries and hours during their careers

As for Afridi see http://www.timesnow.tv/articleshow/1913784.cms

Now I'll go away for another couple of days whilst u concoct another white supremacy conspiracy theory

That's utter nonesense.

Even one of the umpire in Billy had no idea as to how the ball's condition had deterioated, he wanted the game to continue with the same ball but Hair persuaded him to do otherwise.
Also there is hardly many teams that have not been warned for tampering in the past.Rahul Dravid has served a ban for tampering the ball in past, does that mean that if ever a ball gets deterioated in a game which India is playing, Dravid should be banned right away just on mere suspicion?
In any case Inzi has never been caught tampering in past.Waqar wasn't playing the match and nor was Akhtar in the team then.

Hair didn't take the action against a team on "evidence", something which he doesn't have till date.Hair took action against a team based on his age old personal view that the team happen to be cheat and sould be punished.Had there been a similar situation in a match between non-subcontinental teams, a sure Hair's reaction would have been very different.

 

[open365]

Scaly=Darly Hair is disguise trying to clear his name on internet forums worldwide?

Me thinks so.

 

[marc71178]

Interesting comments from Simon Hughes about the ball - suggests that something may well have gone on...

 

[silentstriker]

Scaly=Darly Hair is disguise trying to clear his name on internet forums worldwide?

Me thinks so.

Now THAT is a consipiracy theory that I can believe.

 

[Fusion]

Interesting comments from Simon Hughes about the ball - suggests that something may well have gone on...

Oh this is too much! You conveniently ignore the vast majority of his comments and focus on just the one part where he mentions some degree of doubt. Even there, he states that there was no way to know whether it was man made or natural. His overall opinion was that the ball had NOT been tampered with. Let me quote Hughes:

"One or two of the scratches were concentrated on one area and that slightly aroused my suspicions," he told BBC Five Live. "But it was impossible to say for sure whether they got there naturally or with human intervention."

Now let's look at his other comments:

"The problem was Hair was guessing, using the flimsiest evidence. The marks on the ball were not blatant enough for the drastic measures Hair took,"

It's funny how Scaly and you (among others) are grasping for ANY straws in order to defend Hair. Be just a little fair would you?

 

[marc71178]

It does seem a little strange that these marks are all concentrated around the same area of the ball - extremely improbable that the ball would've been damaged repeatedly in the same spot but nowhere else through natural wear and tear...

 

[silentstriker]

It does seem a little strange that these marks are all concentrated around the same area of the ball - extremely improbable that the ball would've been damaged repeatedly in the same spot but nowhere else through natural wear and tear...

And yet the people who actually saw the ball - Boycott, says there is nothing wrong. And Hughes, says that only minor suspicion was aroused.

 

[silentstriker]

It does seem a little strange that these marks are all concentrated around the same area of the ball - extremely improbable that the ball would've been damaged repeatedly in the same spot but nowhere else through natural wear and tear...

So, what do you think about Scaly's theory that the ball was replaced by the ICC?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Has anyone yet offered the suggestion that Daryl Hair deliberately tampered with ball himself in order to frame the Pakistani team?

 

[silentstriker]

Has anyone yet offered the suggestion that Daryl Hair deliberately tampered with ball himself in order to frame the Pakistani team?

If Scaly was Pakistani, he might have said that

Besides, if he did, he didn't do a very good job. As by most accounts, the ball was fine.

 

[Anil]

It does seem a little strange that these marks are all concentrated around the same area of the ball - extremely improbable that the ball would've been damaged repeatedly in the same spot but nowhere else through natural wear and tear...

marc is on the case...c'mon man only you can solve this conundrum....

 

[marc71178]

And yet the people who actually saw the ball - Boycott, says there is nothing wrong. And Hughes, says that only minor suspicion was aroused.

Depends how you interpret Hughes' comments - his initial mention of the marks all in one area coupled with the latest does suggest to me that something was done to it.

Mind you, as I also said, I've never seen a ball that's been used in a Test for that length of time, and chances are that such marks may appear quite regularly, although not from wear and tear.

 

[marc71178]

marc is on the case...c'mon man only you can solve this conundrum....

Well I'm trying to be objective about it - with the size of a ball, it would have to be a freak happening for all the damage to be concentrated in one place.

 

[marc71178]

So, what do you think about Scaly's theory that the ball was replaced by the ICC?

About as accurate as his idea that Plunkett is Test Class.

 

[Anil]

Well I'm trying to be objective about it - with the size of a ball, it would have to be a freak happening for all the damage to be concentrated in one place.

that is your opinion and definitely not conclusive proof of anything...which is why no one made a decision based on that.....

 

[silentstriker]

About as accurate as his idea that Plunkett is Test Class.

So right on the money, eh?

 

[social]

The view of possibly the most respected man in world cricket

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/sport/sport5.shtml

 

[Anil]

The view of possibly the most respected man in world cricket

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/sport/sport5.shtml

there is clearly no balance to the view of the "most respected man in world cricket"....he is completely biased against pakistan and has made up his mind that ball-tampering took place and that the enquiry was a white-wash....

 

[silentstriker]

there is clearly no balance to the view of the "most respected man in world cricket"....he is completely biased against pakistan and has made up his mind that ball-tampering took place and that the enquiry was a white-wash....

I don't think accusing Richie Benaud as being biased will really get you anywhere. You might as well argue that Dickie Bird was biased.