Ball-Tampering Hearing

[Fusion]

I'm not wrong, and I've quoted the defintion of Not Guilty in legal terms. The purpose of a Court of Law is to establish whether there is enough evidence to convict somebody : the fact that there is not enoguh evidence keeps them out of prison, because it would be unjust to lock up a man without sufficient proof, that does not mean they are innocent, and nor does it mean that the Court belives them to be so.

It's not a difficult concept, I don't understand why you can't follow.

Don't patronize me please. You are refusing to accept the simple concept of "innocent until proven guilty". We can argue around in circles all day, but my point stands. The verdict of "not guilty" does not equate to "we didn't have enough proof to convict you". It means "innocent".

 

[GIMH]

NO. Not Guilty means not found guilty, it does not mean innocent, otherwise they would just call the verdict innocent.

 

[Matt79]

that's it - I'm going to bed!

 

[Fusion]

NO. Not Guilty means not found guilty, it does not mean innocent, otherwise they would just call the verdict innocent.

No need to call the verdict "innocent" when you were innocent to start with.

 

[Legglancer]

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.

Marc, don't even try you have never been Objective when it comes to certain issues ....

 

[Legglancer]

The view of possibly the most respected man in world cricket

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

or possibly a senile old bigot who happened to play cricket

 

[silentstriker]

I think it was more than just 1 or 2 though, although even 2 in the same spot would be about as likely as winning the lottery.

Well if it was that rare, then surely the 'experts' would have testified that the ball was clearly tampered with, if the chance of the marks there is so rare?

Frankly, none of us have seen the ball, and its impossible to guess at the exact condition. Even hughes, who told of the scratches, couldn't be sure, and if he thought the chance of a natural wear and tear was anywhere close to 'winning a lottery', surely he would have testified differently?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The verdict of "not guilty" does not equate to "we didn't have enough proof to convict you"..

You've described there exactly what Not Guilty does mean.

 

[social]

or possibly a senile old bigot who happened to played cricket

There's a heap of those bigots out there

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/surfer/archives/2006/10/icc_the_real_vi_1.php

 

[shortpitched713]

No need to call the verdict "innocent" when you were innocent to start with.

To me the whole concept of the idea of Innocence is a little misleading. Think about it, is anyone over the age of 14 truly Innocent?...

... I mean we've all jacked off before, haven't we?

 

[Fusion]

There's a heap of those bigots out there

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/surfer/archives/2006/10/icc_the_real_vi_1.php

The opinions of most people featured there do not put the entire blame on Pakistan, like Benaud does. In fact, most people are saying that Hair was wrong, but ICC didn't handle the situation properly. Mind you I'm not saying Benaud is biased (just like I never claimed that Hair was), but for him to totally rip into Pakistan while completely ignoring Hair's faults is ridiculous.

 

[marc71178]

Well if it was that rare, then surely the 'experts' would have testified that the ball was clearly tampered with, if the chance of the marks there is so rare?

Frankly, none of us have seen the ball, and its impossible to guess at the exact condition. Even hughes, who told of the scratches, couldn't be sure, and if he thought the chance of a natural wear and tear was anywhere close to 'winning a lottery', surely he would have testified differently?

The problem as I see it is that this ball was no different from pretty much any ball used in Tests, but this one was subject to reports/penalties that no others have been...

However, anybody must admit that from the description of the scratches, it is a huge odds against that it occurred in the course of natural play - but since nothing was seen (as nothing is seen in other games) it cannot be proven.

 

[silentstriker]

However, anybody must admit that from the description of the scratches, it is a huge odds against that it occurred in the course of natural play - but since nothing was seen (as nothing is seen in other games) it cannot be proven.

But Boycott and Hughes didn't give their opinion on wether they SAW someone do it. Boycott held up the ball and said, "this is a good ball, it has not been tampered with". So they were judging the situation only based on the ball. The match referee judged based on all circumstances, but the witnesses testified that the ball itself doesn't show enough signs to be tampered with.

If it did show the scratches that you say, then surely they would have said differently?

 

[Burgey]

or possibly a senile old bigot who happened to play cricket

That'll do me.

Now let's make it really interesting by reading your evidence of Richie being a bigot, let alone senile. I will grant you old, as Richie probably would himself.

Seriously, playing the race card against some one like Benaud demeans the balance of your argument. Here's a bloke who has called matches in just about every country, watched and commented on more tests than anyone else in the history of the game as well as being regarded as one of the great captains of Australia and a fine all rounder to boot. He is widely regarded as a doyen of the game and is respected in every cricket playing country, and you see fit to categorise him as a bigot because he took aim at what the Pakistan team did and said in the debacle at the Oval.

There was no suggestion of him being bigotted when he lauded Akram and Younis when they took England by storm with brilliant reverse swing in the early 90s was there? Or when he stated that he couldn't imagine even Bradman batting better than Viv Richards did in the late-70s and early 80s? Or when he heaped praise on the West Indies teams of the 80s? Well done you.

If only Sir Frank Worrell were alive to comment on your post. We saw ample evidence of Benaud's bigotry in the Tied Test series, didn't we? He and Worrell's efforts as captains did more for the game in that series than most people do in a life time.

 

[Slow Love™]

Well said, Burgey, but really, far too mild.

Legglancer, you're a right ****ing idiot. I read Benaud's comments, and disagreed with him, and thought it was far too charitable towards the umpires in this situation.

But calling a man like Benaud a bigot, on no basis other than he gave his opinion on this event, is freaking outrageous and shameful. You utterly discredit yourself as a rational contributer with such a viewpoint.

Absolutely pathetic.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Man. That sort of crap is why I gave up on posting in this issue. What absolute rubbish.

 

[Jono]

Is it me, or is Richie Benaud looking pretty handsome in this pic?

 

[Burgey]

Striking.

Is that the off-white or the beige?

 

[pasag]

Well said, Burgey, but really, far too mild.

Legglancer, you're a right ****ing idiot. I read Benaud's comments, and disagreed with him, and thought it was far too charitable towards the umpires in this situation.

But calling a man like Benaud a bigot, on no basis other than he gave his opinion on this event, is freaking outrageous and shameful. You utterly discredit yourself as a rational contributer with such a viewpoint.

Absolutely pathetic.

Best post ever for mine.

 

[Slow Love™]

Best post ever for mine.

Meh, it should have been a lot more flaming. And I had a sick child slung over my shoulder, so I had to type it one-handed, and it ended up a bit briefer than I originally intended. But really.... first class ****wad.