***Official*** Pakistan in England

[deeps]

Hair does not know WHO tampered with the ball, or WHEN it was tampered.
He isn't the only one though

26 camera's at the ground, possibly more, so you'd think that at any point of time, at least one camera would be on the ball at all times.

Yet, no footage.

Interesting.

I suppose the pakistani's stopped time, tampered with the ball, and then tried to get away with it.

What interests me:

Alistair cook was out. The ball was in the umpires hands after the wicket. No problem then. Reverse swing was a major factor in Cooks dismisal. So the ball was reversing, and no tampering had taken place (apparently)

Then, a couple of overs later, the ball has been tampered with. I dont know, but if a bal was reversing without tampering, why would the pakistani's tamper with it?

 

[chris.hinton]

its amazing

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How far does this go? What if you begin to suspect - or you are absolutely convinced, as may well be the case with Pakistan, that a decision is biased and basically malicious in intent?

Let's take such a case to an extreme point - let's say if there's an umpire of race X and a team of race Y, umpire X denies every single appeal team Y makes, calls no-balls every time there's a bowled or caught, etc.? Does team Y still take it in its stride?

(Mind you, this is entirely a hypothetical question - I'm not suggesting there's anything racial or whatever about the situation.)

Then you take it up with the relevant authorities afterwards, and the umpire will surely be dealt with. Other umpires have had their careers killed off by making decisions which were biased or simply poor (De Silva etc), after all. Obviously one could come up with a hyperbolic example of a situation in which the only reasonable course of action would be to forfeit in protest, but in all realistic situations likely to be encountered by international players, the umpire's decision should be respected, at least until the end of the match.

There are various famous instances of dummy-spits against umpiring decisions, like the West Indies in New Zealand in the 80s, the Gavaskar near-forfeit, Ranatunga/Hair etc. Generally, it's an unfortunate and undignified way to go about the game, and in this particular instance today it was entirely unnecessary. It is not as though the issue wouldn't have got massive public attention at the end of the day anyway. Pakistan didn't need to stay in for 5 minutes as a protest or anything of the sort. If it turned out that the umpires had no evidence, there would have been significant consequences anyway.

 

[Langeveldt]

Wish you could simulate this on BLIC2005.. I want to download Shahryiar Khans face

 

[Scaly piscine]

Exactly. He's not going to come out and publically blame him. He used his words pretty carefully, as one in his position would.

Why didn't he use those words carefully to get Pakistan back on the pitch on time then? I mean they had 20 minutes, all this crap about them intending to come out just a bit late as a protest is just complete bull as far as I'm concerned.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It seems likely to me that Hair made the decision and Doctrove is showing respect to him as a fellow umpire. And I doubt Shahrayar was going to make it extremely personal and accuse JUST HAIR of not coming back. He would want to be more diplomatic than that.

You may be right, but surely it's a bit early to be stating such a thing as fact. There's no doubt that it would have been a mutual decision to award the game to England IMO, so I think it's unlikely that just Hair would have refused to come out. Regarding the original ball tampering call it may have been Hair alone, but really it's just speculation.

 

[Dravid]

Wish you could simulate this on BLIC2005.. I want to download Shahryiar Khans face

I wish in BLIC 2005 you had the option to beat the umpire with the bat

 

[Jamee999]

This is realllllly silly.

 

[Dasa]

I'm siding firmly with Pakistan on this one, and I can't see what they've done wrong. Can anyone seriously say (without bias) that they have overreacted? A team should not defer to an umpire who has accused the team of cheating, simple as that. I don't give a **** about any spirit of the game or respecting the umpire's opinion - if the umpire is incompetent (and dare I say, racist), he does not deserve respect.

 

[open365]

I'm not entirely sure of the lawbook, but by my understanding, the umpire doesn't have to know who tampered with it, he just has to know it's been tampered with.

When Surrey were fined last season for ball tampering, no one individual was accused by the umpires, but they still got fined 10 points.

I'm guessing the umpires had monitored the state of the ball through the day and they had notied strange things happening to it with no apparnet reason.

 

[Dravid]

This is realllllly silly.

Sunday night drama...aren't you enjoying it???

 

[superkingdave]

This is realllllly silly.

wanna play our Biglands match?

 

[Fusion]

I'm guessing the umpires had monitored the state of the ball through the day and they had notied strange things happening to it with no apparnet reason.

With close to 26 or so cameras focused on every part of the ground and players. The earlier post by someone was correct: Pakistan must have found a way to freeze time, temper the ball, and then resume playing. Those smart cheats!!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm siding firmly with Pakistan on this one, and I can't see what they've done wrong. Can anyone seriously say (without bias) that they have overreacted? A team should not defer to an umpire who has accused the team of cheating, simple as that. I don't give a **** about any spirit of the game or respecting the umpire's opinion - if the umpire is incompetent (and dare I say, racist), he does not deserve respect.

If you're unwilling to respect the umpire's decision you shouldn't be playing cricket as far as I'm concerned. And it's a bit of a leap to assume Doctrove and Hair are racist just because they accused Pakistan of ball tampering, isn't it? Really an issue for the match referee and the ICC to deal with, regardless.

 

[Pratters]

My take - cricket suffers.

 

[marc71178]

I'm siding firmly with Pakistan on this one, and I can't see what they've done wrong.

So what is refusing to play then?

Can anyone seriously say (without bias) that they have overreacted?

Yes.

If they'd taken the moral high ground, and channelled any anger into performance, won the game and then made the complaints then that would've gained worldwide respect.

 

[Run like Inzy]

I totally agree with Dasa. Pakistan and Inzy have done nothing wrong. With 20+ cameras on the field one must always be on the ball or the pitch e.g. Afridi ruining the pitch, Atherton Ball tampering etc. There is no footage so an unjustified decision has been made by the umpires on top of this an unusually high no of decisons have gone against Pakistan. I think they had every right to protest. Its like in street football says 'Oh we will give you that goal eventhough you cheated" after such an allegation there can only be trouble. The religious element in the team probably meant such an allegation was unacceptable

 

[Isolator]

Faaip:

Well, if I were in such a situation I'd be extremely wary of any assurances that the issue will be sorted out after the match or whatever.

 

[open365]

With close to 26 or so cameras focused on every part of the ground and players. The earlier post by someone was correct: Pakistan must have found a way to freeze time, temper the ball, and then resume playing. Those smart cheats!!

The question you have to ask yourself is, do they have a camera on every Pakistani player at all times?

No. They don't.

 

[Jamee999]

I'm siding firmly with Pakistan on this one, and I can't see what they've done wrong. Can anyone seriously say (without bias) that they have overreacted? A team should not defer to an umpire who has accused the team of cheating, simple as that. I don't give a **** about any spirit of the game or respecting the umpire's opinion - if the umpire is incompetent (and dare I say, racist), he does not deserve respect.

Pakistan are overreacting. So, if I don't like the umpires decision, I don't play. Nice.