***Official*** Pakistan in England

[deeps]

In effect you're handing out a license to players to tamper with the ball legitimately as long as they aren't in the direct line of vision of the umpires. So the next time the umpire gets hold of a ball scuffed up in an unnatural fashion, he shouldn't even suggest tampering. Just get on with the game. How wonderful. Out of sight, out of mind ?

He can ask the third umpire to look for footage of tampering. If there is no footage, and therefore no proof, you can't simply accuse them.

If you were driving along, and the cops pulled you over and said 'your rear tyres look more worn than your fronts, you've been doing burnouts' and proceeded to give you a ticket, i'm sure you'd be happy with that.

The ball was hit for six numerous times, hit for four etc. etc. Anything could have happened to it, to make it LOOK tampered. Heck, the ball may have even been faulty.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257324.html

Andrew Miller interviews Inzamam on cricinfo. If what Inzamam says is true, Hair appears even more pig-headed and, more importantly, like he is hiding something wrong.

 

[deeps]

If a seam has been opened, then it's not proper for use. Therefore you replace the ball?

Yes, but you do not accuse the bowling team of tampering, and you do not award 5 penalty runs.

 

[deeps]

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.

That is the STUPIDEST thing ever. Do you even play cricket? Have you seen a real cricket ball before?

There have been times when i've been bowling, and been hit for six (happens often might i add)< and the ball returns to me looking like a totally different ball. There is deep scratches occasionally, dampness or whatever.

Pieterson hit a fair few sixes, chances are it hit concrete a few times, the advertising boards are made of steel, and there's so many other things it could have hit. Even the helmet grill of a batsman would leave a different mark.

There is no way to 'train' someone to distinguish between a deliberately tampered ball, and a ball that has been hit around the park and hitting other things in the mean time.

 

[Neil Pickup]

That is the STUPIDEST thing ever. Do you even play cricket? Have you seen a real cricket ball before?

There have been times when i've been bowling, and been hit for six (happens often might i add)< and the ball returns to me looking like a totally different ball. There is deep scratches occasionally, dampness or whatever.

Pieterson hit a fair few sixes, chances are it hit concrete a few times, the advertising boards are made of steel, and there's so many other things it could have hit. Even the helmet grill of a batsman would leave a different mark.

There is no way to 'train' someone to distinguish between a deliberately tampered ball, and a ball that has been hit around the park and hitting other things in the mean time.

It's a shame that the crux of the issue is the alteration between over 52 and 56, sum total one four and no sixes. It would have been a good, if slightly sensationalist, argument otherwise.

 

[Fusion]

Nasser backs Pak:

Cricket-Former England captains back Pakistan refusal to play LONDON, Aug 21 (AFP) Former England captain Nasser Hussain said he sympathised with Pakistan skipper Inzamam-ul-Haq for refusing to play in the fourth Test after the tourists were accused of ball-tampering at The Oval. Hussain told the Daily Mail: "Did Darrell Hair actually see a member of the Pakistan team tampering with a cricket ball? Has he got proof? …If he hasn't then he has made a massive mistake," Hussain added: "If I had been accused of cheating in this way then, as long as I was sure of our innocence, I would have done exactly the same thing as Pakistan.” "To Pakistan, if they had carried on playing, they would have been admitting their guilt," he said. Also Former England captain Mike Gatting told Sky Sports that the ICC had erred in selecting Hair for Test matches involving Pakistan.

 

[Scaly piscine]

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/257324.html

Andrew Miller interviews Inzamam on cricinfo. If what Inzamam says is true, Hair appears even more pig-headed and, more importantly, like he is hiding something wrong.

Err where? It's just the usual Inzi stuff, him not knowing the rules properly and then whinging about stuff that the umpire is perfectly in their rights to do - why would Hair ask Inzi if it was ok to change the ball?

 

[Fusion]

Inzi's point is that Hair never had a talk with him or the team before or after the incident. He doesn't have to, but most (probably all except him) would have. If he suspected something, he could've had a talk with Inzi beforehand. After tea break, he could've had a lenghty discussion with Inzi to tell him why he came to the conclusion he did. The problem is Hair thinks too much of himself. He thinks he is bigger than the game and his actions can not be questioned. This whole incident arose from his lack of common sense and incompetence.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Err where? It's just the usual Inzi stuff, him not knowing the rules properly and then whinging about stuff that the umpire is perfectly in their rights to do - why would Hair ask Inzi if it was ok to change the ball?

I was refering to the section where Inzy asks if he can see the ball, and is refused by Hair - seems utterly nonsensical.

 

[silentstriker]

If I am accused to being a cheat, then don't I at least have the right to see the evidence against me? Even if its not a law thats spelled out, its just common decency. The only reason you would refuse is if you wanted to create an incident.

 

[Dasa]

Interesting...according to this article, Pietersen complained to Hair about the ball.

 

[silentstriker]

Interesting...according to this article, Pietersen complained to Hair about the ball.

Maybe Pietersen saw someone scruffing the ball? I want someone to come out and say that they saw player X or player Y scruffing the ball, because without that this is a complete farce.

 

[PY]

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!"

Here's a quickly copied version of the picture, as I said, it looks like someone is using their fingernails but it's not really clear what they are doing so it could be innocent.

The picture is the property of Metro, Associated Newspapers Ltd.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Maybe Pietersen saw someone scruffing the ball? I want someone to come out and say that they saw player X or player Y scruffing the ball, because without that this is a complete farce.

If this photo of someone using their fingernails is real, then you may just have what you want. We'll know soon enough.

That, to me, looks like ball-tampering. I wish it didn't, but it's hard not to see it from that.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Here's a quickly copied version of the picture, as I said, it looks like someone is using their fingernails but it's not really clear what they are doing so it could be innocent.

The picture is the property of Metro, Associated Newspapers Ltd.

Care to rotate that 90 degrees...






It's only fair to warn you that an upside-down picture will be met with stern abuse.

 

[steds]

Care to rotate that 90 degrees...






It's only fair to warn you that an upside-down picture will be met with stern abuse.

Copy it into paint and do it yourself.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Copy it into paint and do it yourself.

Well it was his baby. I'm sure there are about 30 people doing their neck in as I type trying to look at that.

 

[IndianByHeart]

Wow, what a charecter this guy is. I mean he declared someone a cheat, that is a big accusation and he certainly should have POINTED OUT AS TO WHEN AND EXACTLY WHICH individual cheated, on top the guy even refused to let Inzi inspect the ball, saying that its his decision to change it and Inzi can't even inspect it

PPl who have been saying that 26 cameras can't capture each and every moment, i have a question from them, is Hair capable of capturing what everyone else can't do it? don't forget its that same Hair that has been giving rediculous decision against Pakistan since a decade.

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.

That a laugh, when can never tell if the ball has actually been tampered. One need a clear proof before one can label someone a cheat.Waqar was labelled once as he was caught doing it, so was Dravid and Cronje, however this time around its a mystery as noone has been seen doing tampering the ball.

Accustaion of cheating must be done on the basis of solid evidence, rather than on assumstions and personal bias.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Anyway presumably *if* that picture is what it says it is then I would guess that's Mohammed Asif on it - given it says it's a bowler and he's the only one who's left handed (right hand bowl left arm bat)

 

[Pedro Delgado]

If this photo of someone using their fingernails is real, then you may just have what you want. We'll know soon enough.

That, to me, looks like ball-tampering. I wish it didn't, but it's hard not to see it from that.

Interesting. How much damage one can do to a ball with ones fingernails is debatable (I have one here now and am struggling to make an impression, the ball is fairly new though) also the accusation seemed to suggest seam lifting rather than bottle-top style cuts in the ball itself.

The photo is not evidence enough for me per se as regards raising of the seam. What we can say is that the photo contains "dodgy" shenanigans, what we can also say is we cannot prove a thing from that photo until we have evidence of its origin, photographer, player involved, time taken etc. If the photo was taken between 14:15-14:30 we might be getting somewhere.