***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Lillian Thomson]

They wouldn't have existed, but could you get odds on an England victory today?

I'm sure a bookmaker would have snapped your arm off if you'd asked, but the days of offering silly odds went out of the window after the Marsh/Lillee act of 1981.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

England were ridiculously short this morning (and yesterday). It's almost as if the market knew something...

The odds on an England victory were shortish maybe, but certainly not an England victory in 4 days which I think is what the poster meant.

 

[Langeveldt]

England were ridiculously short this morning (and yesterday). It's almost as if the market knew something...

I heard someone on TMS say that, interesting..

And we also have the fact that between inspections by Mr Hair, the ball did not hit the boundary boards or get hit for six, and the bat doesnt make big scuff marks on a ball.. We could have had a really boring day of cricket, but this is juicy stuff..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And we also have the fact that between inspections by Mr Hair, the ball did not hit the boundary boards or get hit for six, and the bat doesnt make big scuff marks on a ball.. We could have had a really boring day of cricket, but this is juicy stuff..

I agree. Forget all this bad for the game nonsense. You can't beat the occasional good controversy in any sport.

 

[silentstriker]

Decision is dead right - reasons outlined above. Critically Law 21.3.

Pakistan did the absolutely right thing by walking out. However, the decision to award the test to England is also absolutely right.

Pakistan should not have continued to play after being labeled cheats. But by doing that, they forfeitted the game, and thats fair.

What should come out of all this is that Hair should never ever umpire an international game again. Ever.

 

[Langeveldt]

I agree. Forget all this bad for the game nonsense. You can't beat the occasional good controversy in any sport.

I was going to go and watch Snakes on a Plane if Bell and Collingwood went out and batted again

 

[marc71178]

I reckon Inzamam's reaction is still worse than Hair's - sulking child at best, dummy-out-of-pram instincts of a baby at worst.

I don't think that it was Inzamam's reaction personally.

I think there's been pressure from above in this instance.

 

[marc71178]

It is the best decision Inzamam has ever made in his playing career .. Pakistan clearly lost the last test to Hair and knowledgeable people can see that ..

You what?

England won by 167 runs at Headingley - suggest you look elsewhere for a scapegoat or excuse.

 

[Jono]

I don't think that it was Inzamam's reaction personally.

I think there's been pressure from above in this instance.

Fairly obvious I reckon.

If it was Inzy, one would think it would have been an immediate gut reaction, and there would have been a walk-off before tea.

 

[marc71178]

Who gives a damn what the English media thinks about the Pakistan team??????????????

Do you think the British media will take to kindly to Pakistan ruining the last test of the summer?I sure don't.

For the record I expect that had they played on and issued a statement after the days play the media would've been fully supportive of the Pakistan team.

I wouldn't be so sure now though seeing what actually happened.

 

[marc71178]

After such a horrible accusation i dont think anyone can have their mind on cricket,you could just see the body language of the Pakistan team after that incident.

Hence they carried on trying and took another wicket not long after it...

 

[marc71178]

The action was correct by playing and accepting 5 runs penalty it would have showed that Pakistan accepts Darrel Hair's decision.

No, it would've shown that they respected that there was still a game going on and they had a big chance of winning it.

 

[marc71178]

Come on, the ball has a scratch on it... anything to do with it being hit hundreds of times, hitting boards and even landing somewhere in the stands? Thought so.

But they checked the ball through the day, including at the fall of wickets.

Cook's wicket fell about 4 overs prior to the penalty.

In the interim period, England hit one boundary (which didn't make it far beyond the boundary boards) and a few singles etc.

 

[marc71178]

how would've viewers sympathy transpire into anything actual result for the Pakistani players ?

They'd have won the match, and had the support of pretty much everyone if it is proven that the umpires were wrong.

 

[marc71178]

Hair goes home (why did he even come) and the match may be stripped of its test status.

Erm why would that happen?

 

[marc71178]

no protest = accepting umpires decision.

No, it doesn't.

It means recognising that they can rise above the accusations.

 

[steds]

Marc on his usual roll.

 

[Jono]

But they checked the ball through the day, including at the fall of wickets.

Cook's wicket fell about 4 overs prior to the penalty.

In the interim period, England hit one boundary (which didn't make it far beyond the boundary boards) and a few singles etc.

So if the little 10-15 minute period is definitely where the supposed tampering occurred, surely we could just look at every camera angle possible for the 15 minutes, and follow the ball as best as possible. It wouldn't take as long as Scaly suggested earlier in the thread, and I'm sure the cameras would pick up on anything. Very little can get hidden nowadays.

Plus, Hair was suspicious of them for some reason throughout the day, as shown by the video footage of him continously eyeing Asif down when shining the ball.

 

[Fusion]

But they checked the ball through the day, including at the fall of wickets.

Cook's wicket fell about 4 overs prior to the penalty.

In the interim period, England hit one boundary (which didn't make it far beyond the boundary boards) and a few singles etc.

And? The ball was already old by that time. By then, it would have natural wear and tear. Seems to me that Hair decided to ignore that fact and was dead set on his assumption that it was tempered with. The whole thing comes down to proof. With 26 cameras in the ground, with commentators/officials/umpires/spectators all watching the action, no one can seemingly find evidence that the ball was tempered with. That's overwhelming. If Hair is going to make an accusation like this despite all the above mentioned factors, then he better have some concrete evidence to back himself up!

 

[Langeveldt]

You what?

England won by 167 runs at Headingley - suggest you look elsewhere for a scapegoat or excuse.

And people seem to be forgetting the last time Pakistan played at Old Trafford.. How many no-balls claimed English wickets?

What goes around comes around, I'm not sticking up for Hair, but luck isn't selective, its random..