***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Dasa]

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

That won't go down well.

 

[Run like Inzy]

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.

This isnt the first time Pakistan have been accused of ball tampering it has happened in the past and on those occasions Pakistan has accepted any penalties. On this occasion clearly there seems to be a reason for such action to be taken by the team. The only reason for this is that Pakistan have done nothing wrong and feel that Hair hads been unjust.

 

[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

Ahh, Mark Butcher, total legend

 

[Scaly piscine]

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

Abusive language?

This 'oh we were just delaying for a few minutes in protest, we were actually ready to come out' excuse is so limp and pathetic it doesn't really need explaining does it? They refused to play - to come out later and dress it up as a sort of diplomatic protest is just pure garbage.

Err yea similar to what Faa................................ says.

 

[Fusion]

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.

I agree with you that the players probably decided they weren't coming out and then were talked into coming back by the powers that be. So Sharyar's statement is probably diplomatic speak. However, Hair could then have minimized the controversy by coming back himself. He's a freaking umpire. Why is he the center of attention? Why are those of you blaming Pak not calling him out? Hair likes to think himself as a star and tends to make himself the center of attention. That's the worst thing an umpire can do.

 

[Slow Love™]

...and what would the proper channels be? If the Pakistanis complained after the match, it's likely that Hair (and Doctrove) would escape with nothing more than a slap on the wrists and Pakistani cricket would be tainted for another decade with allegations of cheating. If the alternative is to let their feelings be known now, why not do what they have done?

Incidentally, how many of those who have been so critical of Pakistan would honestly be able to say they would not take the same action if in the position?

I reckon Pakistan's actions could be defended, up to a point. The problem in some ways is that everybody assumes that the players concerned know everything that was going on. But I don't think that anybody did, really (or does at this stage, even).

At the outset, IMO, Pakistan were wrong not to come out after the break, but I also consider their rashness and anger somewhat understandable, if they believe there's no basis to Hair's accusation. It seems to be assumed at this point that Pakistan understood they'd forfeited the game, but it's more than possible that they didn't; and after frenetic talks with game officials, they decided they would in fact continue the game and make whatever complaints they wanted to make later on -- but at this stage, the umpire(s) were refusing to continue. This could be because they believed the forfeiture to be completely final, but they're human beings too, and not immune (certainly Hair is not) to rashness and perhaps, a degree of spite.

Ultimately though, the fairest approach on Pakistan's behalf is to continue the game, otherwise very poor precedents are set. As much as it is being thrown around that Hair hasn't demonstrated proof, it's possible tomorrow that some evidence will be brought forward tomorrow that strengthens or explains his decision. On the simple grounds that there simply isn't the time or the structure to evaluate these things completely on the field of play at the time, the Pakistanis would have been better served getting all the details together and having it assessed properly as it should be. You can't have situations like this flaring up everytime a team thinks it's been hard done by - we see enough minor fusses and displays over apparently bad decisions made by the umpires when footage later establishes that the call may have in fact been decent.

I do sympathise with your point that respecting the letter of the law no matter what is not always advisible or sensible though - it kinda reminds me of exculpatory evidence found past an appeal's deadline that gets knocked back on that basis. There's always a difference between "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law".

 

[Run like Inzy]

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.

Why would they forfeit when they had a chance of winning the test and regaining some momentum before the ODIs? They were still in a commanding postition. Pakistan could have bowled England out with a target of 100-150 to chase, very possible on a pitch which was playing the best it had done all game

 

[Dasa]

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 imagine they wanted to make it a public protest, hence delaying play.

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.

Serious question, what would be a better way of registering a protest?

 

[chalky]

I believe Shahrayar Khan said in one of his statements that the umpires went into the Pakistan dressing room and told them that if they did not go onto the field they would forfeit the match.

 

[Dasa]

I reckon Pakistan's actions could be defended, up to a point. The problem in some ways is that everybody assumes that the players concerned know everything that was going on. But I don't think that anybody did, really (or does at this stage, even).

At the outset, IMO, Pakistan were wrong not to come out after the break, but I also consider their rashness and anger somewhat understandable, if they believe there's no basis to Hair's accusation. It seems to be assumed at this point that Pakistan understood they'd forfeited the game, but it's more than possible that they didn't; and after frenetic talks with game officials, they decided they would in fact continue the game and make whatever complaints they wanted to make later on -- but at this stage, the umpire(s) were refusing to continue. This could be because they believed the forfeiture to be completely final, but they're human beings too, and not immune (certainly Hair is not) to rashness and perhaps, a degree of spite.

Ultimately though, the fairest approach on Pakistan's behalf is to continue the game, otherwise very poor precedents are set. As much as it is being thrown around that Hair hasn't demonstrated proof, it's possible tomorrow that some evidence will be brought forward tomorrow that strengthens or explains his decision. On the simple grounds that there simply isn't the time or the structure to evaluate these things completely on the field of play at the time, the Pakistanis would have been better served getting all the details together and having it assessed properly as it should be. You can't have situations like this flaring up everytime a team thinks it's been hard done by - we see enough minor fusses and displays over apparently bad decisions made by the umpires when footage later establishes that the call may have in fact been decent.

I do sympathise with your point that respecting the letter of the law no matter what is not always advisible or sensible though - it kinda reminds me of exculpatory evidence found past an appeal's deadline that gets knocked back on that basis. There's always a difference between "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law".

Agree with everything you've written there. I'll also point out that IF Hair and Doctrove can provide evidence that ball-tampering did indeed take place, then the Pakistanis are clearly in the wrong, no question about it.

 

[Slow Love™]

Well, for several overs until tea Pakistan did just that.

Are we to assume their burning sense of moral outrage took over half an hour's play & a tea break to develop?

Why's that so hard to believe? Often when you're spectacularly shafted (we can argue whether they're right or wrong on this when we know more, but they obviously believed so), you can be a little shellshocked, and out on the field of play, you don't really have the freedom to sit amongst yourselves actually discussing what happened and getting more and more steamed. Most of us have experienced it at some time or another.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Serious question, what would be a better way of registering a protest?

A public refutation of the accusations & a formal complaint to the ICC? Pakistan had right on their side until they refused to come out.

 

[open365]

This isnt the first time Pakistan have been accused of ball tampering it has happened in the past and on those occasions Pakistan has accepted any penalties. On this occasion clearly there seems to be a reason for such action to be taken by the team. The only reason for this is that Pakistan have done nothing wrong and feel that Hair hads been unjust.

Hair wasn't unjust, if Hair made a bad decision, he was wrong, not unjust, just like he is wrong giving andrew strauss out LBW.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I agree with you that the players probably decided they weren't coming out and then were talked into coming back by the powers that be. So Sharyar's statement is probably diplomatic speak. However, Hair could then have minimized the controversy by coming back himself. He's a freaking umpire. Why is he the center of attention? Why are those of you blaming Pak not calling him out? Hair likes to think himself as a star and tends to make himself the center of attention. That's the worst thing an umpire can do.

As I said earlier, I think it's unlikely that Hair alone refused to come back out.

My interpretation of events it this:

During the tea break, the Pakistani players/officials/captain/whoever decides not to come out after the break as a protest against the ball tampering call.

Following the break, the batsmen and umpires come out onto the pitch, but Pakistan do not.

Taking note of the fact that the fielding team are refusing to play, Hair and Doctrove decide to award the match to England, in accordance with the laws. Failing that, they at least decide to suspend play or something. This exact bit is still up in the air.

Pakistan then decide, presumably with the guidance of the administrators and diplomats, to come out onto the field, and the President guy gives the thumbs up signal and they come out onto the pitch.

The umpires and the batsmen don't come out however, as they've already acted on the presumption that Pakistan were refusing to play. Pakistani officials and Bob Woolmer then complain that 'the umpires are refusing to come out'. This is technically true, but how could they come out if they've already made a decision based on Pakistan refusing to play?

 

[Fusion]

Hair wasn't unjust, if Hair made a bad decision, he was wrong, not unjust, just like he is wrong giving andrew strauss out LBW.

He's wrong when he incorrectly gives a LBW decision. He's UNJUST when he accuses a team of cheating without proof (as it appears right now).

 

[Xuhaib]

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.

No I dont believe so. If you have been harshly accused then you have every right to lodge a protest rather then just accept the decision of an umpire who has a history of showing biasness towards you.

 

[Dasa]

As I said earlier, I think it's unlikely that Hair alone refused to come back out.

My interpretation of events it this:

During the tea break, the Pakistani players/officials/captain/whoever decides not to come out after the break as a protest against the ball tampering call.

Following the break, the batsmen and umpires come out onto the pitch, but Pakistan do not.

Taking note of the fact that the fielding team are refusing to play, Hair and Doctrove decide to award the match to England, in accordance with the laws. Failing that, they at least decide to suspend play or something. This exact bit is still up in the air.

Pakistan then decide, presumably with the guidance of the administrators and diplomats, to come out onto the field, and the President guy gives the thumbs up signal and they come out onto the pitch.

The umpires and the batsmen don't come out however, as they've already acted on the presumption that Pakistan were refusing to play. Pakistani officials and Bob Woolmer then complain that 'the umpires are refusing to come out'. This is technically true, but how could they come out if they've already made a decision based on Pakistan refusing to play?

I recall the Pakistani team coming out earlier (a little bit after the umpires and the English batsmen came out after the tea break), but seeing the umpires and batsmen coming back to the pavilion, they went back to their dressing room.

 

[Jono]

As I said earlier, I think it's unlikely that Hair alone refused to come back out.

My interpretation of events it this:

During the tea break, the Pakistani players/officials/captain/whoever decides not to come out after the break as a protest against the ball tampering call.

Following the break, the batsmen and umpires come out onto the pitch, but Pakistan do not.

Taking note of the fact that the fielding team are refusing to play, Hair and Doctrove decide to award the match to England, in accordance with the laws. Failing that, they at least decide to suspend play or something. This exact bit is still up in the air.

Pakistan then decide, presumably with the guidance of the administrators and diplomats, to come out onto the field, and the President guy gives the thumbs up signal and they come out onto the pitch.

The umpires and the batsmen don't come out however, as they've already acted on the presumption that Pakistan were refusing to play. Pakistani officials and Bob Woolmer then complain that 'the umpires are refusing to come out'. This is technically true, but how could they come out if they've already made a decision based on Pakistan refusing to play?

They can come out and actually clarify their position, instead of staying in their locker rooms in a clear sign of spite against the Pakistani team dare questioning their decision. Its not hard for the umpires to come out and say what exactly a) they saw and b) their decision is regarding the state of the match. They chose to sit on their *** though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why's that so hard to believe? Often when you're spectacularly shafted (we can argue whether they're right or wrong on this when we know more, but they obviously believed so), you can be a little shellshocked, and out on the field of play, you don't really have the freedom to sit amongst yourselves actually discussing what happened and getting more and more steamed. Most of us have experienced it at some time or another.

It's so hard to believe because Inzi doesn't strike one as a particularly belligerent captain; quite the reverse in fact. I'd guess it wasn't his decision & quite possibly not the decision of any of the players. Moreover if Pakistan haven't acted out of anger they've left themselves open to speculation as to the motives for their actions.

I can't quite see it not having been discussed on the field either, can you?

& welcome back, btw!

 

[Xuhaib]

Lolz... just checked the BBC message boards and the reactions over there makes our CW board look a lot sober.