***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Fusion]

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 want to ask your opinion on the umpire's action. You said that Pakistan lost the moral high ground by refusing to take field. I disagree with you, but let's say they did. What about the umpires then? Pakistan were convinced to go on and play. Isn't it petty and stubborn on the umpire's part to not let them play. Mind you, the ECB have stated their players have no problem in resuming play. So it's only the umpires holding up play now. Are their actions without blame according to you?

 

[marc71178]

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

No, they did not protest, they refused to continue playing.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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.

Why are you having a go at the umpires after they'd effectively ended the game for the day and so were in the right to not come out and you're being on Pakistan's side when they did exactly the same thing when they were completely wrong not to come out and were supposedly warned of the consequences?

 

[Dasa]

No, they did not protest, they refused to continue playing.

Their board president said it was a protest. I suppose you know them better though.

 

[Langeveldt]

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

I heard the worst suggestion of the day on TMS - Lets play a one day game tomorrow and foget this ever happened..

What next, bring a bloody peace pipe and smoke it?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I want to ask your opinion on the umpire's action. You said that Pakistan lost the moral high ground by refusing to take field. I disagree with you, but let's say they did. What about the umpires then? Pakistan were convinced to go on and play. Isn't it petty and stubborn on the umpire's part to not let them play. Mind you, the ECB have stated their players have no problem in resuming play. So it's only the umpires holding up play now. Are their actions without blame according to you?

This depends on the specifics IMO. Imagine for instance that Hair and Doctrove agreed to award the game to England immediately (this is possible, as they removed the bails etc). How could they turn around and allow play to commence when Pakistan changed their mind?

I don't really know what's going on with the umpires, but I think the safest assumption is that they made a decision based on Pakistan refusing to play and stuck by it. Pakistan changing their minds was basically irrelvant in terms of the rules being enforced.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

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?

Agreed 100% absolutely. The game was effectively over for the day when Pakistan came out.

In my opinion, the key issue here (what Hair actually saw) is yet to be clarified, but if it is an accusation just on the evidence of the ball, which could have been caused by any number of events, then Hair is in the wrong. However, Pakistan could have legitimately and totally reasonably lodged a complaint with the match referee, consulted the officials at tea, and a course of action could be taken. But the team's response was crass, hot-headed and immature. By getting on with the game they could have appeared far better in the public eye, even if the accusations were of cheating. Surely the best answer to these accusations is to get on with the game, win the match and then plead innocent.

In some ways, Ramiz Raja's response to the events on Sky were just as poor. Immediately after the incident he went on the defensive and tried to make out that Pakistan were the victims - that they had definitely done absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[Fusion]

No, they did not protest, they refused to continue playing.

That is obviously a form of protest. Protest is not limitted to someone holding up a sign stating "I protest". There are many different forms of it. Not to be too overly dramatic, but in history protests have taken place that were considered illegal. Right from Gandhi's non-violent movement to Dr. Martin Luther King's non violent sit-ins for Civil Rights in the 60's.

 

[Slow Love™]

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?

Yeah, I don't really buy it either. They snapped, pure and simple, and weren't gonna come out. Then, possibly, commons sense prevailed, and they agreed to continue the match.

I still think it's understandable, if not completely defendable. That it appears it was too late to continue the match certainly highlights a significant disjoint between the umpires officiating the game and the ICC reps/referees/officials desperately trying to have the game continue. Perhaps the umps could have waited a little longer.

 

[Jono]

To draw a parellel with 'real life', would you respect a police officer if he/she arrested you for a crime you did not commit? To be honest, I can't understand this view from a lot of cricket fans who would be normally be quite progressive regarding issues outside cricket, but become overwhelmingly conservative when it comes to the game of cricket.

That's an interesting point actually, but I guess that's another issue for another day?

 

[Fusion]

In some ways, Ramiz Raja's response to the events on Sky were just as poor. Immediately after the incident he went on the defensive and tried to make out that Pakistan were the victims - that they had definitely done absolutely nothing wrong.

Ramiz may have gone overboard, but he wasn't alone in thinking Pakistan were wronged. Even Nasir, Botham, and Atherton implied that.

 

[Langeveldt]

That is obviously a form of protest. Protest is not limitted to someone holding up a sign stating "I protest". There are many different forms of it. Not to be too overly dramatic, but in history protests have taken place that were considered illegal. Right from Gandhi's non-violent movement to Dr. Martin Luther King's non violent sit-ins for Civil Rights in the 60's.

I heard the ICC have just named Mr Hair's replacement for the fifth day..

 

[Jono]

Why are you having a go at the umpires after they'd effectively ended the game for the day and so were in the right to not come out and you're being on Pakistan's side when they did exactly the same thing when they were completely wrong not to come out and were supposedly warned of the consequences?

If the umpires don't want to come out and umpire, fine. They followed the laws, so they can do that. How about clarifying the actual situation regarding the ball-tampering though? Or what exactly was going on, whether the match was actually forfeited in their mind or not? Instead we had a whole lot of speculation with random diplomats saying "Well I'm not really sure of the situation as of yet"

 

[Xuhaib]

I heard the worst suggestion of the day on TMS - Lets play a one day game tomorrow and foget this ever happened..

What next, bring a bloody peace pipe and smoke it?

Hehe..there was another comment. If Pakistan had not tampered with the ball both Cook and Strauss would have been past 150 now.

 

[Langeveldt]

That's an interesting point actually, but I guess that's another issue for another day?

And also, if you were banged up for a crime that you were not even told you commited?

 

[Jono]

This depends on the specifics IMO. Imagine for instance that Hair and Doctrove agreed to award the game to England immediately (this is possible, as they removed the bails etc). How could they turn around and allow play to commence when Pakistan changed their mind?

I don't really know what's going on with the umpires, but I think the safest assumption is that they made a decision based on Pakistan refusing to play and stuck by it. Pakistan changing their minds was basically irrelvant in terms of the rules being enforced.

Then why not tell us that? They inform us when there is a rain delay, they in form us when there is bad light... yet they kept nice and quiet regarding the state of the match, and the actual events of the ball tampering.

 

[Slow Love™]

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!

Good to see you too, Brumby.

I do see a difference between looks at each other and some cursing on the field as opposed to a group of guys speaking freely in the dressing room though. Of course, it is quite possible that the decision wasn't theirs, as you say. I just don't find the fact that they could get all righteous and steamed up about it during the break that implausible.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Ramiz may have gone overboard, but he wasn't alone in thinking Pakistan were wronged. Even Nasir, Botham, and Atherton implied that.

I'm not disputing that - just that from a very early stage Raja got very, very defensive and armed with no evidence was portraying the events as an attack against Pakistani cricket.

 

[Langeveldt]

This is why I like WWE... If this was WWE they could bring out a steel chair and have Inzamam and Hair go at it, the winner gets to decide the terms of play for the fifth day, which could be on premium TV

And they would have hotties pitchside

 

[marc71178]

Perhaps the umps could have waited a little longer.

They did wait about 15 minutes or so.

Pakistan didn't come out till 40 minutes after the appointed time.