Ball-Tampering Hearing

[C_C]

I have no issue with the use of technology but the fact is that the umpires at the Oval acted in accordance with the existing laws and were shafted in spite of that.

It is not whether they acted in accordance to the law- it is whether their JUDGEMENT was sound- that is the main issue.
A judge can follow the civic code and apply a death sentence to you, acting in accordance to the law but his judgement in applying that law may still be compromised.
I find it ludicrous that you arnt grasping such a simple thing.

 

[social]

I don't know if its been asked or not, but Social what do you think should have been the outcome of the hearing, relating to the issues of ball tampering and of bringing the game into disrepute? Also, what do you think the punishment(s) should have been?

The ball tampering hearing was a farce becuase the only people in a position to determine the rate and cause of the ball's deterioration were the umpires on the day, i.e. without a control sample at, say, the 52nd over mark, forensic testing and/or video evidence it's impossible to say a month after the fact whether the umpires were correct in their judgement or not. As such, only one result was ever possible and that was what was handed down.

In terms of bringing the game into disrepute - I dont think anyone disputes that that was exactly what Inzy did. However, given that he received the lightest possible penalty, I hope we never see a situation that constitues an offence of a greater magnitude.

Personally, I think it underlines the skewed priorities of the PCB that he is undoubtedly going to be immediately reinstated as captain once his ban has been completed -that sends out completely the wrong message to both cricket followers around the world and also to Pakistan's opponents who'll no doubt seek to capitalise on his emotional frailty under pressure in the future.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This message is hidden because Lillian Thomson is on your ignore list.

Tee hee. I have in fact against all expectations found someone genuinely boring enough to add to my Ignore List. Does anyone still read Turbinator's posts?

 

[Slow Love™]

I don't really empathise with some of the hand-wringing about slippery slopes in the wake of this hearing - even if the level of Pakistan's outrage at being accused was at best a bit OTT, and at worst, knowingly self-serving.

We are talking about a fairly new rule, which invites an umpire to make a decision based on prejudice. Given the same set of circumstances, it's likely that some teams will come into question, and others will not, possibly independently of the truth of the situation, and it removes any obligation to make any kind of case against an individual breaking the laws. Whereas in general, an umpire is expected to rule according to their level of certainty based on what they've witnessed, this rule asks the umpire to speculate on something they have not actually witnessed. IMO, it's a very poor rule, and this outcome only emphasises that fact.

The ICC should act appropriately, and remove the rule. At the very least, we revert back to a situation that's served up to now. If an umpire sees a player tampering or treating the ball suspiciously, they report it and we do what we always have. Or -- if they want to incorporate an in-game penalty, I'm fine with that, providing the umpire claims to have witnessed a player doing something dodgy with the ball. Should the umpire's word be enough in that situation? Surely, it should be. But it's a whole other thing to expect us to take the umpire's word on something that he can't possibly know for sure has taken place. IMO, it runs counter to how we expect umpires to make decisions in general. Umpires will always make mistakes, but they should always base their decisions on something they can see (or hear as well, in the case of some caught behinds, etc).

And beyond the obvious reason (that it's a bad rule), it's destined to be challenged in similar ways in future, so I really do think it's use beyond this point is fairly untenable. I don't think this is so much an issue of the umpire's authority being unfairly challenged so much as an example of what happens when you introduce new laws that are counter to how umpires should be making decisions in the field of play.