***Official*** England in Pakistan

[marc71178]

Have you ever taken part in a discussion without retorting to pitiful namecalling?

But taking your own arguement, I am pretty sure what afridi did was also a 'mistake'. I suppose it was a temporary bout of dementia which resulted in him doing a little hop of his own on the pitch - no violation sir, just a simple honest mistake.

I also cannot understand why you are so bent upon defending the umpires (from whichever country) in this case?

Presumably because there's a big difference between an honest mistake and a deliberate act?

 

[marc71178]

Not really considering he cheated. Also can a part of the penalty/ban fall on Inzamam as he was the captain?

I wouldn't have thought this was any concern of Inzy's unless he's proven to have told Afridi to do it.

 

[marc71178]

An 'honest mistake' is a violation. When a law is broken, a violation occurs, no matter the intention of the law-breaker. Intention only comes into play when deciding the penalty for law-breaking.

In that case there are dozens of violations in every series, so why go over the top about 1?

 

[Slow Love™]

No, I took the 'Ban Hair' line as a joke a couple of hours before, and threw it in as a gag myself. I've tried not to take any sides whatsoever in the 'which transgressor of the rules was the gravest' because everything's all a bit petty.

I tried to explain my interpretation of why certain decisions had been made, but I guess that we were all guilty of misinterpreting what others were saying.

Nailing my own colours to the mast as follows regarding events during this game:

Bell was naughty (although he might not have known it at the time), but he was no Latif.
Inzy was terribly hard done by but Harmison was faultless in his own action (you try to judge whether someone is in or out from 22 yards)
The umpires were wrong
Inzy was superbly diplomatic the way he accepted it, especially in the post-play interview (but insisted he was not out).
Tresco's catch to get rid of Afridi was good (ball bounced up off the finger ends, we've seen it so many times before)
Afridi was an eejit to try to get away with scuffing the surface
Pietersen was better off staying out of it.

Disagree with any or all of them, I'm past caring.

It's very possible I won't end up disagreeing with any of it, mate. I was only surprised, 'cause I noticed you reacted extremely to Beleg in another thread around a week or two back, and he looked as confused as I was. We have our share of Joan Crawfords on the forum but I always thought he was a pretty level-headed guy, and I wondered if perhaps you'd mistaken him for someone else. But for all I know you two may have some long history that goes way back.

 

[marc71178]

Well the Shoaib pitch roughing incident has reminded me to rank Pakistan as most hated team. I thought they'd evolved from picking at the ball as they did 5-10 years ago, but obviously nothing has changed. The PCB can still limit a lot of the damage if they ban Afridi for a long time, but as far as I'm concerned this Test series should be abandoned, 2 chuckers in the first Test and now this.

NOTE:

The views above are from a the posters own and do not reflect on the other, reasonable, 99.9% of English members of the forum who don't think everything is out solely to get us.

 

[marc71178]

The chuckers had just been cleared

Where have the chuckers been cleared?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Err no.
No balls/out from ball pitching outside the leg stump etc. are judgement calls based on observation.
Inzy's dismissal was an error caused due to insufficient understanding of the rules from the umpire's part.
Simple as that.

Unless of course the umpires interpreted Inzy's act of jumping out of the way as an attempt to take a run in which case they were within their rights to give him out.

From the pictures on Sky Sports even the line call looked very dubious and didn't prove beyond doubt that he was run out at all.

 

[marc71178]

The chuckers were cleared at the University of Western Australia.

So how did Malik manage to get over there, clear his name and back in time to open the innings yesterday?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Where have the chuckers been cleared?

They were cleared but it was a HAIR line decision.

 

[marc71178]

As usual the BBC fails to produce an article on the blatant cheating from a Pakistan player because it might offend the Pakistani population.

Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?

 

[marc71178]

Well documented where?

Whenever such low chances are taken around the world.

 

[Unattainableguy]

Come off it, it's far far far worse.

No, because chances of what he did with the pitch going onto trouble the batsmen are very remote( did he even make it so bad?), and somehow that leading to a dismissal-- I don't see it happening.

 

[Slow Love™]

Its about time we introduced technology in the game for the betterment of the game, instead of sticking to sentimental and outdated concepts of human eye being the ultimate judge.

I agree with the basic point, but I'm not sure how much of all this controversy would have been avoided by having more technology in the game.

 

[marc71178]

They were cleared but it was a HAIR line decision.

Not recently they haven't been.

 

[marc71178]

No, because chances of what he did with the pitch going onto trouble the batsmen are very remote( did he even make it so bad?), and somehow that leading to a dismissal-- I don't see it happening.

You what.

So he just happened to pick a spot where the spinners are going to aim and it's only a remote chance of it affecting the game?

 

[marc71178]

I agree with the basic point, but I'm not sure how much of all this controversy would have been avoided by having more technology in the game.

Besides which, the technology was used on the Inzamam decision.

 

[ClownSymonds]

So how did Malik manage to get over there, clear his name and back in time to open the innings yesterday?

You're misinterpreting what I said. I was saying that Malik and Shabbir both were cleared before the start of the series.

 

[luckyeddie]

It's very possible I won't end up disagreeing with any of it, mate. I was only surprised, 'cause I noticed you reacted extremely to Beleg in another thread around a week or two back, and he looked as confused as I was. We have our share of Joan Crawfords on the forum but I always thought he was a pretty level-headed guy, and I wondered if perhaps you'd mistaken him for someone else. But for all I know you two may have some long history that goes way back.

I guess it's all a case of misinterpretation - one man's mistake is another's violation.

For instance, if a woman has been assaulted, it is often described as her having 'being violated' - but I don't see "It was a mistake" being a successful defence in a court of law.

 

[luckyeddie]

You're misinterpreting what I said. I was saying that Malik and Shabbir both were cleared before the start of the series.

But reported again after the first test

 

[ClownSymonds]

Its about time we introduced technology in the game for the betterment of the game, instead of sticking to sentimental and outdated concepts of human eye being the ultimate judge.

So you'd do away with the on-field umpires and keep only the 3rd then?