-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* England in South Africa
- Thread starter James
- Start date
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
We were 5 down around this time in cardiff IIRC. As long as Colly's out there I believe we're in the game. But you know, it is me.
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
We're definitely still in the game! I mean, Siddle batted for three hours yesterday at number 10 and Swann > Siddle.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
I think it's not healthy to try to relate every single incident of alleged ball-tampering back to events at the Oval.
Anyhow the two cases are different. Before they take any action, the officials are required to form an opinion on the evidence.
Doctrove and Hair took their action because they believed, based on the state of the ball, there had been ball-tampering. Subsequent TV analysis (which was never going to be available to them on the field at the time when they had to make their decision) showed that they were mistaken, but it doesn't mean that their approach was wrong.
The officials in the current Test took no action because they formed no such opinion. This was because (a) the umpires didn't see the incident and presumably didn't notice any change in the condition of the ball and (b) the match referee, having seen the TV footage, formed the opinion (rightly, in my view, but that's neither here nor there) that there was no illegal ball-tampering.
And so the two cases are completely different. In one, the umpires formed the requisite opinion; in the other, they didn't.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
No because he (and Billy Doctrove whom you seem to be forgetting) has a different function to the match referee. The on-field umpires have to regularly inspect the condition of the ball, and if they believe that it has been unfairly altered, have to take action then and there without an appeal from the other team. In the present case, the on-field umpires saw no such evidence so took no such action.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well if Hair's actions were the right thing to do then England would get a 5 run penalty for Jimmeh being a bit of a tool, the ball would be changed and we'd all move on. That's how these incidents should always be dealt with I reckon, but Pakistan throwing a hissy fit has screwed with the system and now when it happens it's blown up into a whole "I'm telling the match referee on you" pile of bollocks.
King Pietersen
International Captain
Steyn finally bowling like we know he can against England. Beautiful bowling, amazed Collingwood's managed to stick around. There's a battle on here!
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
Bowling now albeit with no pace.de Wet out with a back strain is a huge blow for South Africa. Wonder if Ntini will comeback for the Wanderers.
South Africa need three wickets this session (Collingwood, Prior, Broad) to be assured of victory. Two and then the draw is still on.
chalky
International Debutant
I am only reading on cricinfo but am really into it sounds an awsome battle between Steyn & Collingwood.
King Pietersen
International Captain
Think he's just come to the end of his spell, but it's been easily the best spell of bowling I've seen from him against England. Good pace, swing and then late movement off the deck as well. Collingwood did brilliantly to just survive, the way some of the deliveries darted off the pitch from off-stump away towards the slips was incredible, they were going so late. Awesome spell.