***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Beleg]

So what do you suggest then?

Learning to read complete posts?


Anyway, has Mr. Hair given any statement regarding his reasons behind the ball-tampering accusition? Is the accusition backed by evidence? (multiple eye-witnesses among the crowd but most importantly the volley of cameras around the ground)

 

[honestbharani]

Which part of 'scuffed up in an unnatural fashion' do you not get ? Umpires are trained to distinguish between natural wear and tear, dew etc as opposed to deviations from those.

And of course the umpires can never be wrong because they have been 'trained'.....

 

[Dravid]

Anyone know if the ODI series is still on?

So many umpire threads in this forum!!!

 

[Dasa]

Anyone know if the ODI series is still on?

Can't see why it wouldn't be. The issue is with Hair, Doctrove and the match officials of one particular Test match, not with the ECB.

 

[adharcric]

hair - like you - is trained only in stupidity. have u ever seen a cricket ball ?

 

[Yahto]

And of course the umpires can never be wrong because they have been 'trained'.....

And you, sitting in front of the idiot box are obviously the better judge

 

[Yahto]

hair - like you - is trained only in stupidity. have u ever seen a cricket ball ?

Yes. Next question, JustaTool ?

 

[honestbharani]

And you, sitting in front of the idiot box are obviously the better judge

wat are u sitting in front of, mate?


And of course, I am not judging. But I am well within my rights to say that what the umps are accusing of the Pakistan side is a pretty serious, esp. since there is no real evidence out there as yet. Like a video or something. All they have got is circumstantial evidence and in cricket, I don't think u can start labelling people as cheats based on just circumstantial evidence. And in this case, even that doesn't seem strong enough.

 

[Yahto]

Learning to read complete posts?


Anyway, has Mr. Hair given any statement regarding his reasons behind the ball-tampering accusition? Is the accusition backed by evidence? (multiple eye-witnesses among the crowd but most importantly the volley of cameras around the ground)

It is my understanding that Umpires are not allowed to interact with the media regarding their on-field decisions. They report directly to the Match referee. Mike Proctor would be the person to approach.

 

[Yahto]

wat are u sitting in front of, mate?

I never pretend otherwise. Which is why we have umpires on the field. You do realise why we have umpires, don't you ?

And of course, I am not judging. But I am well within my rights to say that what the umps are accusing of the Pakistan side is a pretty serious, esp. since there is no real evidence out there as yet. Like a video or something. All they have got is circumstantial evidence and in cricket, I don't think u can start labelling people as cheats based on just circumstantial evidence. And in this case, even that doesn't seem strong enough.

Which brings us back to the slippery slope situation. You would then be licensing teams to then engage in exactly what the Pakistani team have been accused of. You either trust the umpires judgement wrt the condition of the ball, or you don't. You'd need to take a look at the ball personally for that.

 

[honestbharani]

It is my understanding that Umpires are not allowed to interact with the media regarding their on-field decisions. They report directly to the Match referee. Mike Proctor would be the person to approach.

look, I dont care what the protocol is or watever. This is a BIG BIG accusation against an International side which is captained by one of the better players of our generation and a man who is generally regarded to be a gentleman. So is it really that difficult for either of the umps or Procter to have come out and said on what basis they came to that conclusion? I am sorry, but the fact that they haven't gets me to think that they probably acted on insufficient evidence. Of course, if it all gets proven tomm. that one of the Pak players did do it deliberately I am more than happy to post an apology here. After all, it is not wrong to be wrong, is it?

 

[adharcric]

You either trust the umpires judgement wrt the condition of the ball, or you don't. You'd need to take a look at the ball personally for that.

When a lbw decision or a grounded catch is at stake, you can trust the umpire's judgment any day (although even that is now scrutinized with tv replays). When something that goes beyond the game at hand is at stake ... ie a team's respect, esteem and integrity ... you need some serious evidence. Don't tell me that cricket's rules don't allow/require the umpires to explain their decisions, because general conduct dictates that they should explain their decisions with evidence when it involves something as serious as this, something that is beyond the trivial aspects of the game of cricket.

 

[_Ed_]

You would then be licensing teams to then engage in exactly what the Pakistani team have been accused of.

Not really. With the number of cameras in use, the two umpires and the opposing team, not to mention the crowd, I really believe that it would be extremely difficult, bordering on impossible, to get away with tampering with the ball without being seen doing so.

 

[GIMH]

I've not seen it anywhere else, but there was a picture of a Pakistan player tampering with the ball on the front of today's Metro. I can only see his hands so I don't know who it is.

 

[silentstriker]

He went on to reveal what was said when Hair came into the Pakistan dressing room. "I say to him, 'Why did you change the ball?'. He says the ball has been tampered with. I say 'Show me', but he is not showing me the ball. It's in the referee's room, but I say it is in my rights to see the ball, to show that the ball is doing nothing. I wanted to say, 'It's OK, the condition of the ball has not changed', but Hair says 'It's my decision.'"

Inzamam also revealed what went on out in the middle at the point that Hair changed the ball. "He [Hair] says "It's doing this", and they didn't warn me, then he's giving me five runs, he's not talking to me, not telling me when he's changed the ball, he's not asking me 'Can we change the ball?' Personally I go there and say, 'Why did you change the ball?'."

Thats not right. Hair at least owed the captain an explanation.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I've not seen it anywhere else, but there was a picture of a Pakistan player tampering with the ball on the front of today's Metro. I can only see his hands so I don't know who it is.

I look forward to someone scanning that.

 

[GIMH]

I can't, I'm afraid. It's odd, though, that a rag like that would have a picture when nobody else does. It's not conclusive, but it is suggestive.

 

[Neil Pickup]

What strikes me instantly is that it's either something dredged from the mists of 1992, or that it's a spoof hurriedly cobbled together for the purpose of illustrating what ball tampering is to idiots. I don't have any way of getting the Metro down here, and there's nowt on their website.

 

[GIMH]

It's accompanied by the text:

A Pakistani bowler appears to work on the ball during the Fourth Test against England yesterday, shortly before his site forfeited the match following a row over alleged cheating. The Pakistanis refused to return to the field at The Brit Oval after being penalised for tampering with the ball. Talks last night failed to save the match

If they've just dragged a pic from 1992 then that's really naughty!!

 

[Neil Pickup]

I've just sent a text to PY, telling him to raid the Sheffield trams for a copy.

The reply: "I have a copy in my hands this second with what looks like fingernails being used liberally on parts of the ball. Can't tell for certain what's going on though!"