***Official*** Pakistan in England

[marc71178]

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

And neither should Doctrove then?

 

[silentstriker]

Make your mind up.

They did continue to play.

Yes, and they shouldn't have. They should have kept refusing to play after being called cheaters.

 

[marc71178]

And? The ball was already old by that time. By then, it would have natural wear and tear.

Yes it would've done, but they would've been aware of the condition of the ball after 52 overs, and then the condition after 56 overs - hence the period in time isn't anywhere near as long as is being made out.

 

[silentstriker]

And neither should Doctrove then?

If it turns out that neither of them saw anyone tampeing with the ball, but still accused people, then absolutely.

 

[marc71178]

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

I wouldn't.

So why did they not walk off immediately then?

 

[marc71178]

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.

No, he wasn't.

By that time the game was already finished because Pakistan had forfeited the game.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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

Nice job morons.

Again you ignore the incident involving Surrey. There are still various possibilities of how the ball could be damaged and it only by being tampered with in this situation.

Ah crap I keep half repeating marc, or vice versa.

 

[open365]

*Points out the Surrey players acctualy were cheating, they did it twice in the same innings and they admited afterwards that someone had owned up to it.*

 

[Scaly piscine]

Can't help laughing at Cricinfo's Bet365 advert with LIVE flashing away giving odds on whether Collingwood would get a 50 or not in the 4th Test...

 

[silentstriker]

So why did they not walk off immediately then?

They should have.

 

[silentstriker]

Again you ignore the incident involving Surrey. There are still various possibilities of how the ball could be damaged and it only by being tampered with in this situation.

Ah crap I keep half repeating marc, or vice versa.

And if Surrey felt that it was unfair -- they should have walked off too ( I said this earlier). Of course open365 said that they admitted being cheats, so in that case - admitting your error and accepting the penalty is the way to go.

But if you didnt cheat, and were still labeled one, then absolutely you should walk off.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

The point is, BOTH umpires felt that the 3/4 overs between when they looked at the ball at the fall of the Wicket and when they looked at it again, that the ball had deteriorated more than they felt was natural. In this case they decided the only other way it could have deteriorated was due to a player artificially aging the ball.

We have no choice but to accept the umpires decision surely? if we dont, basically no umpire can ever call a team up for ball tampering, as they'll just say they are innocent and theres nothing that can be done. The fact is, if some other umpire bar Hair had done this, would Pakistan have done the same thing? i doubt it.

 

[silentstriker]

The point is, BOTH umpires felt that the 3/4 overs between when they looked at the ball at the fall of the Wicket and when they looked at it again, that the ball had deteriorated more than they felt was natural. In this case they decided the only other way it could have deteriorated was due to a player artificially aging the ball.

We have no choice but to accept the umpires decision surely? if we dont, basically no umpire can ever call a team up for ball tampering, as they'll just say they are innocent and theres nothing that can be done. The fact is, if some other umpire bar Hair had done this, would Pakistan have done the same thing? i doubt it.

The umpire should never accuse a team of something like this, unless they saw someone tampering with the ball.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

The umpire should never accuse a team of something like this, unless they saw someone tampering with the ball.

Well whats to stop people tampering with the ball on the boundry then? no way 2 umpires 60+ feet away in the middle will be able to see clearly enough.

They must have seen a marked deterioration in the balls condition to make the choice they did. It wasnt just Hair, Doctrove also agreed, so they must have had some evidence on the ball.

The umpires have to be given the power to umpire the game on the field. You cant start 2nd guessing them or making it like a court of law, when it comes to burden of proof.

 

[open365]

Can i just ask, why was Umar Gull taken off as soon as they changed the ball?He was bowling really well.

 

[Langeveldt]

Can i just ask, why was Umar Gull taken off as soon as they changed the ball?He was bowling really well.

He was in the 6th over of his spell mind you

 

[Fusion]

Yes it would've done, but they would've been aware of the condition of the ball after 52 overs, and then the condition after 56 overs - hence the period in time isn't anywhere near as long as is being made out.

In that case, it should be fairly easy to go back and watch video of that short time frame (like Jono pointed out). With that many cameras, and relatively short time frame, we should be able to make out if something happened.

 

[adharcric]

Well whats to stop people tampering with the ball on the boundry then? no way 2 umpires 60+ feet away in the middle will be able to see clearly enough.

They must have seen a marked deterioration in the balls condition to make the choice they did. It wasnt just Hair, Doctrove also agreed, so they must have had some evidence on the ball.

The umpires have to be given the power to umpire the game on the field. You cant start 2nd guessing them or making it like a court of law, when it comes to burden of proof.

The umpires still better have some visual evidence of a player tampering the ball though, because an accusation of cheating is a pretty serious matter. They can't just start making guesses as to what happened to the ball and charge someone of cheating. Perhaps Hair associates Pakistanis with ball-tampering (from past experiences and his personal bias) and that influenced his action.

 

[_Ed_]

Well whats to stop people tampering with the ball on the boundry then? no way 2 umpires 60+ feet away in the middle will be able to see clearly enough.

I don't think you could get away with that in front of a packed stand, especially if it's not your home crowd!

 

[Langeveldt]

Hair should speak out, but ball tampering is never far away from Pakistan

What we have learnt from today is that chris.hinton has the unusual ability to be on nobody's side, without sitting on the fence