***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Neil Pickup]

A question for those in the know according to rules does the umpire have to physically see someone altering the ball or can he base it solely on the condition of the ball?

Law 42.3

3. The match ball - changing its condition
(a) Any fielder may
(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.
(ii) remove mud from the ball under the supervision of the umpire.
(iii) dry a wet ball on a towel.

(b) It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball, except as permitted in (a) above.

(c) The umpires shall make frequent and irregular inspections of the ball.

(d) In the event of any fielder changing the condition of the ball unfairly, as set out in (b) above, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) change the ball forthwith. It shall be for the umpires to decide on the replacement ball, which shall, in their opinion, have had wear comparable with that which the previous ball had received immediately prior to the contravention.
(ii) inform the batsmen that the ball has been changed.
(iii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side. See 17 below.
(iv) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for the action was the unfair interference with the ball.
(v) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
(vi) report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.

(e) If there is any further instance of unfairly changing the condition of the ball in that innings, the umpires after consultation shall
(i) repeat the procedure in (d)(i), (ii) and (iii) above.
(ii) inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken and direct him to take off forthwith the bowler who delivered the immediately preceding ball. The bowler thus taken off shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings.
(iii) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
(iv) report this further occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Cricinfo now has "Test could still be on at Oval" as its headline. Click on the link tho & it says it's off.

 

[Yahto]

You sir will go far

Ah, a soul mate

 

[Jono]

And Monty Panesar went for a ton and only got one wicket. For Scaly's sake his needs his figures to get back to the mid 30's.

LOL! Best post in this thread

 

[SpaceMonkey]

A question for those in the know according to rules does the umpire have to physically see someone altering the ball or can he base it solely on the condition of the ball?

He doesnt have to see someone tamper with the ball. Just suspect it from looking at the condition of the ball.

Surrey got done for ball tampering not long ago, and even to this day no one has owned up to doing it even though they did their own internal investigation after the game

I think we'll have to wait for the player to retire and admit to it in his autobiography or some such

 

[Fusion]

But now everyone's lost all (or a lot of) respect for Pakistan.

Who is everyone? I haven't lost repect for them. Based on their comments, a lot of posters who are NOT Pakistani haven't lost respect for them.

 

[Xuhaib]

But now everyone's lost all (or a lot of) respect for Pakistan.

A stance had to be taken.

 

[Neil Pickup]

With an offical for whom they have lost all the respect continuing to umpire.

What should England have done after the first goal in the Azteca Stadium in 1986? You can't seriously tell me they had any respect left for the referee after that?

 

[steds]

It must be the ICC's "Lets pretend it never happened" mentality.

Word

 

[Gotchya]

Brit fans aren't hoping for England to be awarded the match. They're hoping for Pakistan to pay for their ridiculous display. As Neil Pickup puts it, what now prevents a team from forcing abandonment in a test they're losing (for instance) ? An unhealthy precedent has been set.

And what to become of the precedents set by Darrell Hair?

I can see where you are coming from, but isn't it mighty easy to project some self-importance these days?

It was essentially mindless Management at Oval. It is clear like hell that Pakistan had a problem with Hair and his decision at Tea, and then Hair goes out to remove the bails later to complete his theatrics and walk off all dignified. Well done.

 

[steds]

What should England have done after the first goal in the Azteca Stadium in 1986? You can't seriously tell me they had any respect left for the referee after that?

Edit: Never mind...

 

[Jamee999]

Situation:

Last day of the Last Test of the Ashes.

England 170/8 needing 350 to win.

Harmison "Zidane's" Gilchrist, and is dismissed for being a twonk. Monty comes out, then walks off with his partner. England refuse to play, blaming "bad decisions", and the game is abandoned.

 

[open365]

Ok, it seems to me that all Pakistan supporters cre about is their oh so precious pride and what other people think about them.

What none of you seem to realise is that by taking this course of action they now look far more worse off.

If you had continued to play and lodged complaints to the ICC, everyone in England would have supported you, as it is, we all think your babyish and hate you for ruining the last test.

I don't think you have any pride at all.

 

[greg]

Slowlove, this is the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/video_and_audio/help_guide/4304501.stm

 

[Jono]

LOL! I clicked my Cricinfo favourites link with teh headline "Test abandoned at Oval". Then clicked 'refresh' and the headline read "Test could still be on at Oval".

Love how this is being handled.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And what to become of the precedents set by Darrell Hair?

I can see where you are coming from, but isn't it mighty easy to project some self-importance these days?

It was essentially mindless Management at Oval. It is clear like hell that Pakistan had a problem with Hair and his decision at Tea, and then Hair goes out to remove the bails later to complete his theatrics and walk off all dignified. Well done.

We have enough umpires to find those who can act at International level in the name of cricket, not themselves. Hair must never officiate in a Test or ODI again. It's not something you can bend the rules for, though.

 

[Xuhaib]

What should England have done after the first goal in the Azteca Stadium in 1986? You can't seriously tell me they had any respect left for the referee after that?

Neil it was not an umpiring error like L.B.W or caught behind it was a blatent accusation of cheating.

I believe you mean the hand of god thingy?

 

[Yahto]

And what to become of the precedents set by Darrell Hair?

I can see where you are coming from, but isn't it mighty easy to project some self-importance these days?

It was essentially mindless Management at Oval. It is clear like hell that Pakistan had a problem with Hair and his decision at Tea, and then Hair goes out to remove the bails later to complete his theatrics and walk off all dignified. Well done.

Whom do you contact to get Rule 21.3 abolished with retrospective effect, sir ? The MCC or the ICC ?

 

[TT Boy]

Ok, it seems to me that all Pakistan supporters cre about is their oh so precious pride and what other people think about them.

What none of you seem to realise is that by taking this course of action they now look far more worse off.

If you had continued to play and lodged complaints to the ICC, everyone in England would have supported you, as it is, we all think your babyish and hate you for ruining the last test.
I don't think you have any pride at all.

Which before today's incident, no one could give a flying **** about...

 

[Slow Love™]

Sorry. I should backtrack slightly on the bit about "the game being forfeited". Although having been given an ultimatum and seen the umpires subsequently walk to the middle, wait, take the bails off, and walk back again, they must have known that.

Maybe - except that it still seems that nobody knows for sure whether the game was literally awarded to England. Cricinfo's text commentators seemed to read it at the time as play being abandoned for the day. And the ECB are still sketchy as to whether there's going to be more play in the test tomorrow - now cricinfo is reporting it as possibly back on. Urgh...