***Official*** England in Pakistan

[C_C]

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.

Real time referencing to the cricketing rules would've helped, no doubt.
( i hope umpires know where icc website is?)

 

[Unattainableguy]

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?

Again, if he had caused enough damage to the pitch, and it was not suitable for batting anymore, the umpires would have stopped the play.

 

[C_C]

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

On field umpires would simply relay the appeal to the 3rd umpire/computer and maintain decorum in the middle in my idea of cleaning up cricket.

 

[ClownSymonds]

But reported again after the first test

Yes, and I never said otherwise. The whole reason why I mentioned the two being cleared before was because someone accused Pakistan of cheating by having them bowl in the first test.

 

[ClownSymonds]

On field umpires would simply relay the appeal to the 3rd umpire/computer and maintain decorum in the middle in my idea of cleaning up cricket.

That's terrible. Americanisation of a good, traditional sport. I hope you never get into a position of power.

 

[luckyeddie]

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.

Oh, you absolute drama queen.

Beleg and ClownSymonds, I humbly apologise for any digs, deliberate or accidental, I have ever made (or will do in the future) at your expense.

You have nothing on this guy, who's straight out of the Norman Tebbit School of International Diplomatic Relations.

 

[Slow Love™]

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.

Might be a morbid comment, but I think it's a successful defence fairly often in that context (not that it should be!).

Anyhow, it obviously depends on the context - but when you're talking about laws (which I think Beleg was - I'm too lazy to go and look it up though), using the term "violation" seems just like legalese, ie, parking violation, etc.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes, and I never said otherwise. The whole reason why I mentioned the two being cleared before was because someone accused Pakistan of cheating by having them bowl in the first test.

Oh, that'd be Scaly Piscine.

I take your point.

 

[Slow Love™]

Real time referencing to the cricketing rules would've helped, no doubt.
( i hope umpires know where icc website is?)

Heh, true - although it depends on the extent of their ignorance in this instance. If all they were concerned with was whether Inzy was in his ground or not, and they had no clue that his evasion of the ball could be a factor, they'd have no reason to look it up.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?

I don't read any papers, they're all as a big a waste of space as each other - as is reinforced every few days by the latest Scrabble article including someone they've made look like a nerd followed by made up quotes and gibberish facts that would take at most a couple of minutes to get right. You know I'm right about the BBC, Inzi gets a bad decision and there's a proper feature article on it, Afridi does some of the most disgrace cheating ever seen on a cricket field in years and nothing.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by ClownSymonds
Yes, and I never said otherwise. The whole reason why I mentioned the two being cleared before was because someone accused Pakistan of cheating by having them bowl in the first test.


Oh, that'd be Scaly Piscine.

I take your point.

I didn't say they were cheating, I said they were chuckers - which is again entire accurate, but then you know that anyway.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Then as play ended, Shahid Afridi was seen scuffing the wicket with his boots

England batsman Kevin Pietersen, at the crease with Bell, immediately asked Afridi what he was doing, apparently concerned about the effect his action might have on the condition of the pitch.

And the Pakistan all-rounder could yet find himself questioned by the match referee.

From the BBC.

 

[C_C]

That's terrible. Americanisation of a good, traditional sport. I hope you never get into a position of power.

Tradition is worthless when it goes against practicality and logic.
Traditionally guys like you used to get a chisel hammered into your skull ( called trephining).
Pity we dont have that tradition anymore, eh ?

Human umpires are not good enough anymore with the availability of technology.
The point is to improve the sport, not pander to meaningless and worthless traditions.

PS: i am pretty anti-american politically and perspective-wise, but you wouldnt know that.

 

[C_C]

Afridi does some of the most disgrace cheating ever seen on a cricket field in years and nothing.

Inzy got a real bad deal and Afridi + Bell got off with murder.
Simple fact is, umpires arnt good enough.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Then as play ended, Shahid Afridi was seen scuffing the wicket with his boots

England batsman Kevin Pietersen, at the crease with Bell, immediately asked Afridi what he was doing, apparently concerned about the effect his action might have on the condition of the pitch.

And the Pakistan all-rounder could yet find himself questioned by the match referee.

From the BBC.

Hurray, a few lines dedicated to the worst act of cheating in cricket for years hidden in the middle of a match report. Bravo BBC.

 

[Dasa]

Whenever such low chances are taken around the world.

That's hardly 'well documented' - especially since you haven't provided any specific instances of it being documented.
At any rate, from my personal experience, I know if a ball has carried and if it's legitimate or not. It's not that hard.

 

[ClownSymonds]

Tradition is worthless when it goes against practicality and logic.
Traditionally guys like you used to get a chisel hammered into your skull ( called trephining).
Pity we dont have that tradition anymore, eh ?

Human umpires are not good enough anymore with the availability of technology.
The point is to improve the sport, not pander to meaningless and worthless traditions.

PS: i am pretty anti-american politically and perspective-wise, but you wouldnt know that.

And I suppose you'd rather be enhanced by cybernetic parts, or maybe have robots replace us all, as humans are not good enough anymore with the availability of technology.

Cricket would lose one of its most important elements if umpires were done away with. The human error in the giving of decisions is one of the biggest points of interest and discussion in the game. We wouldn't be able to occupy so much of our time with cricket if it was always just clearly out or not out, leaving us the chance to say nothing but "yeah, ok".

 

[ClownSymonds]

Inzy got a real bad deal and Afridi + Bell got off with murder.
Simple fact is, umpires arnt good enough.

So make sure the umpires know the Laws, but don't do away with them.

 

[ClownSymonds]

Hurray, a few lines dedicated to the worst act of cheating in cricket for years hidden in the middle of a match report. Bravo BBC.

You're as crazy as the bird in your avatar. I doubt you were complaining when Vaughan was commenting on how he thinks moving from position to position while the ball is being delivered is "quite smart".

 

[luckyeddie]

Hurray, a few lines dedicated to the worst act of cheating in cricket for years hidden in the middle of a match report. Bravo BBC.

Are you saying that there was a SECOND incident?

I ask that because the first time, Pietersen wasn't even at the wicket - Trescothick was, because it was just after the explosion was heard.

Edit:

I'm not sure what I mean any more. Was it at the end or was it after the explosion?