Ball-Tampering Hearing

[Anil]

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.

did you read the article?

 

[silentstriker]

did you read the article?

Yes. He is entiled to his opinion. Having a difference of opinion does not equate to bias.

 

[Anil]

Yes. He is entiled to his opinion. Having a difference of opinion does not equate to bias.

when he is projected as the most respected voice in cricket, it does...you don't expect such one-sided arguments from people who are said to command such respect, i can understand and accept to a certain extent his argument about inzy's and the pak team's behaviour during the match but the way he completely glossed over hair's part in the whole sordid episode and just zoomed in on pakistan as the villians in the whole mess was disgustingly one-sided...

 

[Dasa]

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.

Benaud has always been biased.

 

[social]

when he is projected as the most respected voice in cricket, it does...you don't expect such one-sided arguments from people who are said to command such respect, i can understand and accept to a certain extent his argument about inzy's and the pak team's behaviour during the match but the way he completely glossed over hair's part in the whole sordid episode and just zoomed in on pakistan as the villians in the whole mess was disgustingly one-sided...

You mean like the star witness Geoff Boycott?

 

[social]

Benaud has always been biased.

Yep, universally* regarded as a biased no-nothing











* definition - a few idiots on cricket forums to the rest of the world, he's tops

 

[Dasa]

Hmm...never criticising Australia, constantly overlooking other cricketers to praise Australians, not a single word critical of Hair while laying into Pakistan....not biased?

By the way, thanks for calling me an idiot.
Another thing, I didn't say Benaud was a "no-nothing", I said he was biased.

 

[silentstriker]

Hmm...never criticising Australia, constantly overlooking other cricketers to praise Australians, not a single word critical of Hair while laying into Pakistan....not biased?

By the way, thanks for calling me an idiot.

Or maybe he believes its irrelevent what Hair did, because it would not justify the actions of Inzy.

 

[Dasa]

Or maybe he believes its irrelevent what Hair did, because it would not justify the actions of Inzy.

...but he's clearly being selective in his criticism with comments like "and the Test would have continued if Pakistan had resumed play" when Hair had just as large a part in that as did the Pakistanis.

 

[Fusion]

...but he's clearly being selective in his criticism with comments like "and the Test would have continued if Pakistan had resumed play" when Hair had just as large a part in that as did the Pakistanis.

Exactly. And by the way, who granted him the title of "most respected man in cricket"?? He's entitled to his opinion, but that opinion does not weigh any more than those of Bird, Botham, Hussain, Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Woolmer, Boycott, Hughes and more who put the majority blame on Hair.

 

[Anil]

Exactly. And by the way, who granted him the title of "most respected man in cricket"?? He's entitled to his opinion, but that opinion does not weigh any more than those of Bird, Botham, Hussain, Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Woolmer, Boycott, Hughes and more who put the majority blame on Hair.

didn't you know, everyone except us few idiots on cricket forums...

 

[honestbharani]

Under what provision?

It wasnt out of shape

It hadnt passed it's use by date

Either it was tampered with or it wasnt

Not tampered - do nothing

Tampered - act as they did.

Inzy's potential reaction is irrelevant.

It WASN'T tampered with. That is the whole issue here. It may have gone out of shape or whatever, but there was no way anyone could have been sure that it WAS tampered with.

 

[honestbharani]

Came down to rules - nothing more or less

Nope, came down to common sense and the fact that Hair lacks it.

 

[honestbharani]

Pretty much every independent person who has seen the ball has made the same conclusion: the ball was not tampered with and Hair was guessing (incorrectly). Just goto the cricinfo surfer section and read the columns there. It shocks me that even after this hearing there are people who refuse to criticize Hair and maintain he has done nothing wrong!

Indeed. I wonder what Messrs. Ponting, Border, Warne etc. have to say now. Suddenly they seem to be at a loss for words when normally they seem to have an opinion on everything.

 

[honestbharani]

I've about this course of action and i think i may have even been worse than what Hair did.

Let's say it gets out that Hair told inzamam he was concerned about the condition of the ball, in my opinion, this would constitute Hair saying they cheated because i don't think you would warn someone unless you were very sure the ball was being tampered with, and i think a lot of supporters would have thought this aswell.

Think what would happen now, the view would be ''Hair is a racist, if he thought we were cheating he would have changed the ball and gave a 5 run penalty, what he did shows he wanted to imply the team were cheating but didn't have the evidence and didn't want to get himself fired'

nope, it wouldn't have happened simply because had that been the case, Hair would have been telling the truth. He would have said that he simply suspects it and doesn't have proof and is just letting the captain know that he isn't happy with something.

 

[honestbharani]

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

In Scaly and Social's world, Pakistan = guilty, no matter what the verdict says.

 

[honestbharani]

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

because the ball was out of shape. And no one was sure how it had gone out of shape and because one cannot act on speculation.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

The fact that these guys' evidence was accepted shows that they are qualified enough to remark on the condition of the ball. Secondly, if the ball was still in good enough condition to be played with, which is what Boycott and others had said, why did this become an issue at all? If I recall correctly, you only change the ball if it was not in a playable condition and I would assume a tampered ball would not be considered to be in "playable condition" under the present laws.

 

[honestbharani]

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

Nope, the other one wasn't sure at first and was convinced into doing this by that one umpire. Given the fact that the other guy is a junior, not that hard to understand who would have been the one who forced the pace.

 

[honestbharani]

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

I don't think even Hair had any knowledge on what caused the ball to deteriorate. But I think the basic point here is that there was no way anyone could have concluded that the deterioration happened due to human tampering from just looking at the ball at that state, no matter wat its state was previously. And secondly, Hughes and Boycott have also said that it was not a ball that was going to go bananas or watever. So even if Pakistan HAD tamepered with the ball, it was not really gonna help them in that state. Maybe Hair would have had a better case had he only waited for another 5 overs and IF Pakistan were actually tampering with the ball, its condition would have been altered enough for it to reverse swing plenty and then maybe he could have made his case. Either way he acted without common sense and in a hurry based on very little evidence and also had a confrontational attitude and he deserves to be taken off the panel for all that.