Freddie claims he was shot at in Delhi....

[Sanz]

Except it isn't one word against another because the game was filmed and there's records of a stoppage in things like cricinfo. Also those that are speaking out against Flintoff on this incident are going to have some explaining to do if the footage proves to be conclusive.

And obviously those who chose to remain silent for 4 years, chose not to report to police must be let off without any explanation. And also those who are accused ICC of Asian bias don't need to explain it either.

 

[Shounak]

If this really did occur, then Nass is the main person to blame. Not only did he sweep it under the carpet, he sent the players back to their positions..

If one of your kids complains to you that they are being beaten up by their babysitter, are you completely blameless if you keep sending them back?

The captain has a responsibility.. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say on the matter..

 

[Pratters]

How though? If you're sitting way back in the Eden Garden's stadium, you not only have thousands of people to look over but also the caging (or whatever it is).

The player near the boundary line near to your stand will be identified without much qualm. The issue being talked here. The other players - its not as difficult to say Warne is standing at the slips or Tendulkar for India. The fielder fielding at point is usually one of two or three for most teams.

Apart from the bowler and keeper there are just 9 fielders. With a bit of help of some one else's binoculars you can identify players you have doubts over and carry on from there. If some one is standing at silly mid on, he will do so for most of the day. So once you have identified who it is (by the naked eye or binoculars) its not as difficult really.

 

[Legglancer]

How many times has it happened? And remember pitch invasions and all that controversy? Wasn't that in England? The point is, apart from a few idiots, the Indian fans are almost as well behaved as anyone else in the world. And how come it is only when guys like Freddie come in, expecting to be hit, that they are targetted. I remember Lee and the Aussie guys, and some SAF guys working the crowd well and saying how much they enjoyed all the attention in INdia.

I Clearly remember the ugly images from the 1996 World Cup Semifinal (India/SriLanka) Incident where it was abanded because the crowd set fire to the stadium because India was losing ..... It was a shameful day. It seems these things happen more often in India .... sadly.

 

[C_C]

How come whenever anything has happened, you've experienced it in your lifetime?

Because i've had a very interesting life growing up so far.
Not many people have gone to 9 different high schools spanned over 5 different nations and 12 different cities.
When you move around so much, shyte tends to happen a lot. Plus i've backpacked in europe/north america a few times. Which is why a backpacker has way more life-experiences than a village boy who's never been 5 miles from his village.
Incase you think i am lying, you can pop in in vancouver and i can show you my bullet scar.

 

[C_C]

For Christ's sake, did you read the cricinfo commentary? "Some of the crowd have got a bit excited, it appears Flintoff has been hit by something..." If you think the whole 'incident' has been made up then presumably someone has gone back into the cricinfo archives and doctored them! It is pretty obvious they did not think their "lives were in danger" or there in no way in a million years that they would have stayed on the field.

As for your statements about being in a gunfight, SWAT teams - well most people in England don't have much experience of that so perhaps they wouldn't know to be quite so scared. I guess that the SWAT teams wouldn't, however, have a policy of being quite so cautious if they knew the greatest threat they were up against was an air rifle.

As for "criminal negligence", this is a CRICKET team not the British Army!

Oh yes. the crowd got excited, flintoff came running to Hussain and they went and talked to the umpire and Flintoff went back to where he was and play resumed.
That so confirms him being shot at, doesnt it ?

That so lets us conclude that he's been shot at instead of someone hurling a rock or two at him or a banana or some bottles.
Next time there is a lil chat between two players of the opposite team in the heat of the moment, i am sure you can claim with certainty that one was threatening the other with mafiosi action and getting his whole family shot up.
You ever heard of a term called 'poetic licence' ? or ' bait and switch' ?

Something happened- of that there is no doubt. But it could've been a million and one things and Flintoff needs to provide some evidence of such a serious allegation.
Some people might be swayed by the messenger and not the message, but I would like to hear both sides of the story and see some evidence before i start claiming one or the other as a fact. Maybe such investigative reasoning doesnt fit the bill of total trolls like Scaly Piscine and some others but thats just too sad.

 

[C_C]

Banned for what? Lying (if he is)? Risking his life (if he was in the first place)?

Admittley I'm not a lawyer, but I'm struggling to see what he could be banned for?

Slanderous behaviour can see sanctions levied against you in a court of law.
If i claim that George Bush tried to choke me to death and i am proven wrong, harsh penalties would be imposed due to slander.

 

[C_C]

Lol - perhaps you should go to the Times and read today's extracts about how he's never certain that his injury problems won't occur at very short notice

Anyway, have you even read the article? I get the Times and I can tell you that the incident wasn't even given a headline. One would have thought if he had invented an incident to increase his book sales he would have taken the precaution of getting the Times to splash it all over the back page!

Here you are, here's a link

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3341-1790020,00.html

God I wouldn't want you to be on the ICC disciplinary committee with the power to ban people! We wouldn't have anyone to play international cricket left ;-)

Well if i were on an investigative committee, i would be professional about it, unlike most naysayers here. I would go by evidence and likelyhood rather than taking something at face value depending on my prejudices and who it is thats making the allegations.

As per as taking precautions of how it is billed, Flintoff doesnt control the newspapers. When it comes to loose cannon statements from stars, it is a media gamble.
I can see why Freddie would want to take such a gamble.

 

[PY]

shyte tends to happen a lot.

You've been warned about this before, there's really no need for it plus the filter is there for a reason.

 

[C_C]

Except it isn't one word against another because the game was filmed and there's records of a stoppage in things like cricinfo. Also those that are speaking out against Flintoff on this incident are going to have some explaining to do if the footage proves to be conclusive.

You have no idea then what the word 'conclusive' means.
There is evidence that the game was stopped and started due to something .
Whether that something is Flintoff getting shot at, a cobra wandering into the grounds, people pelting rocks, bottles, food, etc. is all open for debate until evidence for or contrary to it is provided.
I know you cant help it, but try not to be such an idjit.

 

[greg]

You have no idea then what the word 'conclusive' means.
There is evidence that the game was stopped and started due to something .
Whether that something is Flintoff getting shot at, a cobra wandering into the grounds, people pelting rocks, bottles, food, etc. is all open for debate until evidence for or contrary to it is provided.
I know you cant help it, but try not to be such an idjit.

You didn't read what he wrote, I'm afraid.

Also those that are speaking out against Flintoff on this incident are going to have some explaining to do IF the footage proves to be conclusive.

 

[C_C]

You didn't read what he wrote, I'm afraid.

Also those that are speaking out against Flintoff on this incident are going to have some explaining to do IF the footage proves to be conclusive.

I read very well what he wrote thank you.
What he forgot to add is that those who are speaking out for Flintoff on this incident are going to have some explaining to do IF the claim is proven to be false.

 

[Sanz]

You've been warned about this before, there's really no need for it plus the filter is there for a reason.

Ahem...ICC-Like-Inconsistency

 

[greg]

I read very well what he wrote thank you.
What he forgot to add is that those who are speaking out for Flintoff on this incident are going to have some explaining to do IF the claim is proven to be false.

He was under no obligation to make the point, but now you've got it on the record. It doesn't have anything to do with your previous post saying he "doesn't know what conclusive means".

Anyway seeing as the video shows play being held up with Flintoff clearly mouthing the words "I've been shot!" one would have thought you would have given up on the claims that Flintoff has made the whole incident up. Whether he was mistaken about what happened at the time is one thing, but he clearly didn't make the incident up.

 

[Jace11]

Bit strange responses. Mostly from people who are just jealous a player like Flintoff isn't in their national side. Sad losers. Anyone who watches Flintoff and has heard him speak knows he is as honest as the day is long. Anybody who automatically calls him a liar is just ignorant and missing a genuine world class all-rounder in their team.

 

[C_C]

Bit strange responses. Mostly from people who are just jealous a player like Flintoff isn't in their national side. Sad losers. Anyone who watches Flintoff and has heard him speak knows he is as honest as the day is long. Anybody who automatically calls him a liar is just ignorant and missing a genuine world class all-rounder in their team.

Yes, how simple !
If only court cases followed that logic in investigative journalism and not indulging in tabloid journalism.

 

[PY]

Ahem...ICC-Like-Inconsistency

I didn't see that because I don't have the time to read all the posts and I think Pedro will confirm he's been asked not to as well. And why does it involve you anyway?

I noticed that one and I'm sure not apologising for pointing it out if that's what you want me to do.

 

[C_C]

He was under no obligation to make the point, but now you've got it on the record. It doesn't have anything to do with your previous post saying he "doesn't know what conclusive means".

Anyway seeing as the video shows play being held up with Flintoff clearly mouthing the words "I've been shot!" one would have thought you would have given up on the claims that Flintoff has made the whole incident up. Whether he was mistaken about what happened at the time is one thing, but he clearly didn't make the incident up.

So now yer a lip reader ? Flintoff mouthed the word 'i've been shot' that only NOW people start to notice, eh ? Nobody-not a frigging soul- noticed that when the incident occured.
Do you know what 'suggestable' means ? I think you are being very suggestable here.

And clearly didnt make it up ? Well boyo, we have no evidence to believe that !
He could've been shot, he could've been mistaken, he could be lying through his teeth.
We just dont know .
So instead of taking sides because you feel that way i suggest you let the brain do the thinking - ie, wait for evidence and both sides of the story !

PS : I clearly got what he was insinuating - he said that he thinks Flintoff is right because play stoppage confirms what Flintoff is saying (sic).

 

[greg]

I don't really care. You can believe he made things up for no reason. That's your prerogative.

Finished the Old Trafford test yet?

 

[C_C]

I don't really care. You can believe he made things up for no reason. That's your prerogative.

If you read what i have said so far - i think both sides of the coin are possible.
It is possible that there was a coverup and it is also possible that Flintoff is mistaken/making it up.
All i said is that until evidence is provided one way or another and until the other side speaks, i find the latter option more likely .