***Official*** Pakistan in England

[open365]

Basically your trying to say their was no way the umpires can be held accountable for their own decision? If asked why the accusations were made what are they goin to say the ball looks worse than it did 10 minutes? There could be hundreds of reasons for the ball getting damaged. You can't rule out the fact that a mistake was made

I'm not ruling out the possibility the mistake was made, i'm saying that A)it doesn't matter and B) Your all acting on the basis that the ball was most certainly not tampered with.

 

[Xuhaib]

A 60 0vers old ball can get damaged in many ways the umpire has no right to accuse a team of ball tampering when he himself has not seen a particular player doing it by his own eyes.

I would support Inzi's decision of protesting, there are things more important then a game of cricket.
Pakistan's honour has been dented and by continuing to play it would have suggested that Pakistan accepts that they tampered with the ball.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Brit missed a trick in not stamping their logo on the door of the away team dressing room.

 

[marc71178]

Trevor Jesty missing a trick at the moment, he should be Ebaying that ball

He can't yet, he's the umpire's representative in the meeting (not quite sure why though?)

 

[Run like Inzy]

Have you ever thought that the umpires where noticing eveidence of ball tampering throughout the day but only then did they feel they had enough evidence to prosecute for it.

So if it was going on all day why didnt the 26 cameras catch it? Do the umpires have a greater sense of vision than the TV cameras? They can't seem to make too many run outs without them?

 

[marc71178]

As Shahrayar Khan said in his interview, they intended to lodge a protest by delaying their arrival onto the pitch. From that, it seems as if Hair and co. jumped the gun and assumed they were forfeiting.

Refusing to play is forfeiting though.

 

[TT Boy]

Have you ever thought that the umpires where noticing eveidence of ball tampering throughout the day but only then did they feel they had enough evidence to prosecute for it.

I find such a claim rather ludicrous to be honest with you and one if I was a batsman not particularly satisfied with.

 

[Run like Inzy]

A 60 0vers old ball can get damaged in many ways the umpire has no right to accuse a team of ball tampering when he himself has not seen a particular player doing it by his own eyes.

I would support Inzi's decision of protesting, there are things more important then a game of cricket.
Pakistan's honour has been dented and by continuing to play it would have suggested that Pakistan accepts that they tampered with the ball.

Absolutely right and thats the main reason why the whole decision by Pakistan to delay play was justified and the action of the umpires not so

 

[TT Boy]

Refusing to play is forfeiting though.

But protesting (what the Pakistani’s did) is not?

 

[chalky]

As Shahrayar Khan said in his interview, they intended to lodge a protest by delaying their arrival onto the pitch. From that, it seems as if Hair and co. jumped the gun and assumed they were forfeiting.

I think this was just back pedaling by Shahrayer Khan once the umpires had called Pakistans bluff.

 

[Langeveldt]

He can't yet, he's the umpire's representative in the meeting (not quite sure why though?)

Probably because Darryl Hair is on the Heathrow ring road at the moment?

 

[open365]

Yes, and what does the ball show? That something has caused it to get scuffed. This something could be anything - ball hitting hard surface, general wear and tear, player tampering with it, cricket ball-eating bacteria from outer space, etc.

Yes you can, ball tampering is dealt with on the county circuit where they have no cameras at the ground and the umpires don't know who did it.

Maybe the umpire looked at the ball once, gave it back the bowler, checked it again a few overs later, when no boundaries had been hit and seen something that couldn't have happened by non-human actions.

 

[Scaly piscine]

As Shahrayar Khan said in his interview, they intended to lodge a protest by delaying their arrival onto the pitch. From that, it seems as if Hair and co. jumped the gun and assumed they were forfeiting.

That is such a crock of bull, by coming up with rubbish like that he's just discrediting Pakistan's position even further.

 

[Run like Inzy]

Refusing to play is forfeiting though.

The rules state ( as read out by Bumble afterwards) that a discussion must take place between the umpires in which the players must state what they are doing etc. There was no such discussion. Pakistan are within there rights to stage a protest with the intention of continung to play afterwards

 

[Dasa]

That is such a crock of bull, by coming up with rubbish like that he's just discrediting Pakistan's position even further.

Why (and can we have a reason without the abusive language and absurd comparisons)?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

As Shahrayar Khan said in his interview, they intended to lodge a protest by delaying their arrival onto the pitch. From that, it seems as if Hair and co. jumped the gun and assumed they were forfeiting.

Doesn't that claim strike you as a little odd? There's no real reason to do that, after all. If you're not going to play as a protest, why do it for 5 minutes? And if it's simply a matter of officially lodging the protest, why not do it during the 20 minute tea break?

I think the obvious explaination is that Inzy/the Pakistan players decided not to come out onto the field and then got talked out of it by the more diplomatic officials. Then of course when they came out the game was already over.

Either way, Hair and Doctrove are well within their rights to award the game to England as soon as it becomes clear Pakistan were refusing to play, even if it was for 5 minutes. As far as they knew it was a permanant decision anyway.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As Shahrayar Khan said in his interview, they intended to lodge a protest by delaying their arrival onto the pitch. From that, it seems as if Hair and co. jumped the gun and assumed they were forfeiting.

I personally think there are ways & means of registering protest while retaining a fidelity to the spirit of the game. I don't think for one second Pakistan intended to forfeit, that was the sword of Damocles that the umps held over them for refusing to taking the field on time.

By not resuming they've left themselves open to the assumption of forfeiting.

 

[Isolator]

i'm saying that A)it doesn't matter

For some reason I read this as "Ajit doesn't matter".

 

[Langeveldt]

Some sense being spouted on TMS at the moment

If you allow a team to leave the field when it suits it, it sets a very dangerous precedent for cricket..

Word

 

[open365]

And isn't taking what action Pakistan took ruining your reputation and intergity even more?

It certainly is in the eyes of the British public.