***Official*** Pakistan in England

[silentstriker]

No, it doesn't.

It means recognising that they can rise above the accusations.

Would you want to play in an enviornment after someones' unfairly told you that you're a cheat?

I wouldn't.

 

[marc71178]

I don't know that I'd put a lot of stock in this account, really - it reads as confused, more than a little editorialised and hardly sounds like "the Pakistani version".

When Mark Nicholas interviewed the PCB chairman, he said that the umpires had told the Pakistan team that if they didn't get onto the field immediately they forfeited the game.

At that the Pakistanis went back into the dressing room to discuss things.

 

[marc71178]

And well, if it has been abandoned, its spineless of the ICC.

How is it spineless?

 

[Fusion]

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

It's the other way around. The umpires need to proof that the Pak team is guilty. There is a presumption of innocence.

 

[steds]

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.

They're 4 steps ahead of Television, though. They had lasers hidden in their watches, which they used to make the ball deteriorate. Lucky Mr. Hair was on hand to save the day...

 

[marc71178]

you forgot the main culprit sir.

Funny how Doctrove isn't getting any criticism at all here.

Yet he was there in the middle at the same time (and presumably had his say)

 

[open365]

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

You should have gone and watched it anyway, it's meant to be a cracking film.

Am i the only one that thinks England should have gone onto the pitch and started having a mess about game to keep the crowd entertained? I think it'd be more intresting than the normal test match in a way.

 

[marc71178]

Farce, farce, farce. Someone call in Basil Fawlty please. The ICC are acting like a bunch of frickin' losers. Tossers.

Please explain what the ICC have done wrong.

 

[silentstriker]

Funny how Doctrove isn't getting any criticism at all here.

Yet he was there in the middle at the same time (and presumably had his say)

But Hair was the one refusing to come out:

But just as it had seemed the match was about to restart, the Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer said a fresh delay had been caused by the refusal of umpire Darrell Hair to continue standing in the match.

 

[marc71178]

Precdent or no precedent, so much power in the hands of the umpires is a farce.

No more power than in any previous game of Test Cricket.

In fact it's refreshing to see the umpires having the backing of the ICC this time, following the last walk-off in International Cricket...

 

[open365]

But Hair was the one refusing to come out:

But just as it had seemed the match was about to restart, the Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer said a fresh delay had been caused by the refusal of umpire Darrell Hair to continue standing in the match.

I no Darrel Hair's a pretty naff umpire, but he did the right thing in refusing to come, Pakistan don't have the right to pick and choose when they want to play the game.

 

[silentstriker]

The official also confirmed that no individual had been named by the umpires and no specific incident was highlighted either.

So, they didn't see anyone do it, but they felt like accusing someone of tampering with the ball anyway.

Nice job morons.

 

[TT Boy]

You should have gone and watched it anyway, it's meant to be a cracking film.

Am i the only one that thinks England should have gone onto the pitch and started having a mess about game to keep the crowd entertained? I think it'd be more intresting than the normal test match in a way.

Probably.

 

[marc71178]

The power of deciding a match should not reside with the umpires.

So what do you suggest then?

 

[Scaly piscine]

But Hair was the one refusing to come out:

But just as it had seemed the match was about to restart, the Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer said a fresh delay had been caused by the refusal of umpire Darrell Hair to continue standing in the match.

Err the game was already effectively forfeit, the bails had been knocked off. Of course he's going to refuse to continue standing in the match.

 

[silentstriker]

I no Darrel Hair's a pretty naff umpire, but he did the right thing in refusing to come, Pakistan don't have the right to pick and choose when they want to play the game.

Agreed, I think its fair that they lost the test match. I also think its fair that they refused to play after being called cheats. But Hair is the one who started the whole thing.

 

[marc71178]

Ugh. How many time does it need to be pointed out that it's not just a "bad decision". It's an accusation that you were cheating. There's a huge difference in accepting a bad decision and accepting an attack on your character!!

Can anyone remind me, did Surrey refuse to play last year when the same thing happened?

 

[silentstriker]

You should have gone and watched it anyway, it's meant to be a cracking film.

Am i the only one that thinks England should have gone onto the pitch and started having a mess about game to keep the crowd entertained? I think it'd be more intresting than the normal test match in a way.

Well, right now Pakistan are not mad at England -- there is no reason to be. That would change all that, and you're probably the only one that would advocate it.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Make your mind up.

They did continue to play.

 

[silentstriker]

Can anyone remind me, did Surrey refuse to play last year when the same thing happened?

If they didn't, they should have (unless they actually did it).