***Official*** Pakistan in England

[IndianByHeart]

Err yea, because if there was any evidence they'd just immediately release it for you to have a look at wouldn't they?

Oh cool I'm on 6660 posts, that means I get to be extra mean to people for my next 9 posts.

No, because if there was no evidence then the right thing would be to not to inspect the ball and avoid looking stupid !

 

[Goughy]

I'm doing the same with a ball that looks about the same age. It's perfectly easy, using exactly the same grip on it that the Pakistani player above is usung, to get underneath the quarter-seam.

The ball looks fine here...

But if you lift the flap...

Then you get major air resistance and much swing. That's the theory, at least...

There are 101 ways to doctor a cricket ball.

Lifting the 1/4 seam does what you suggest regarding air resistance but it also offers a number of other opportunities.

Firstly is softens that side of the ball which allows greater moisture to be absorbed to make one side of the ball heavier and enable greater reverse swing. The opening also enables moisture to penetrate easily into the ball, again to increase the weight.

2ndly, lifting the 1/4 seam allows dirts to get into the gap (or be put there!) which again weights one side of the ball and allows greater reverse swing.

I know how to doctor a ball in many ways, things I have learnt from playing with a lot experienced players from a variety of cultures. Vaseline and picking the seam from English players and how to doctor and change the ball to get greater orthadox and reverse swing from Pakistanis.

Ive praticed it all in the nets, for the sake of knowledge, but never in a game.

 

[silentstriker]

Ive praticed it all in the nets, for the sake of knowledge, but never in a game.

Uh-huh. I'm sure.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Inzi charged with disripute AND changing condition of the ball.



Fair enough (by the letter of the law) for the former, but Inzi picking the seam et al??

Outragious suggestion IMO. Time will out.

 

[Goughy]

Uh-huh. I'm sure.

Well the vaseline made the ball slip from my hands, and I could never find a team I played in willing to even try reverse-swing let alone ball tampering as it was alien to them and they were all used to bowling orthadox swing and would never let me work on the ball, even with legal methods.

I used to be able to reverse the ball along way (not quite quick enough now) but never got to do it in games as the captians would never let me prepare the ball for reverse swing.

 

[no1_gangsta_786]

I just read the report of the Metro showing the picture of a pakistani player picking at the seam...is there anywhere i can see this picture on the internet?

 

[Steulen]

Inzi charged with disripute AND changing condition of the ball.



Fair enough (by the letter of the law) for the former, but Inzi picking the seam et al??

Outragious suggestion IMO. Time will out.

Isn't the captain automatically implicated in this sort of things due to the Spirit of Cricket gibberish? So even if you outsource the seam lifting to the Barmy Army in row 17 you're still responsible for it being the fielding captain

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I just read the report of the Metro showing the picture of a pakistani player picking at the seam...is there anywhere i can see this picture on the internet?

On this thread.

 

[Jono]

Inzi charged with disripute AND changing condition of the ball.



Fair enough (by the letter of the law) for the former, but Inzi picking the seam et al??

Outragious suggestion IMO. Time will out.

Facing an 8 match ban, unbeleivable.

 

[steds]

I just read the report of the Metro showing the picture of a pakistani player picking at the seam...is there anywhere i can see this picture on the internet?

Yep. Just a few posts back.

 

[silentstriker]

Holy crap - bringing the game into disrepute? Thats a big charge. If Pakistan did in fact tamper with the ball, than the charge & the punishment is justified. However, if he forfeitted the game when he actually did not cheat, then the charge is rubbish.

 

[Goughy]

Out of interest, is there any news about whether bookmakers are paying out for an England victory?

Im not implying any money changed hands but by forfeiting Pakistan fixed the result of a game and made an improbable result a reality.

A forfeit and walk off must be heavily punished as it a dnagerous precedent that could have many other implications in other games.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Isn't the captain automatically implicated in this sort of things due to the Spirit of Cricket gibberish? So even if you outsource the seam lifting to the Bamry Army in row 17 you're still responsible for it being the fielding captain

The fellow in the Metro pic is too slim. The defence rests, my Lord.



I see. I find it odd is all, the last chap I suspect would be involved (from either team) is InshallahInzi, but as skip he is responsible for the team as you say. Woolmer was interviewed by Athers' this morning and said he personally went around the team at tea and asked them "under oath" (inshallah?? I know not how these sky pixie worshippers work but it seems credible that some sort of God was involved if oath is used) and all to a man denied it.

Mind you, we've seen Afridi get up to all sorts in the name of his God so perhaps lying is allowed in certain circumstances.

 

[silentstriker]

Out of interest, is there any news about whether bookmakers are paying out for an England victory?

Im not implying any money changed hands but by forfeiting Pakistan fixed the result of a game and made an improbable result a reality.

A forfeit and walk off must be heavily punished as it a dnagerous precedent that could have many other implications in other games.

Not if Pakistan are innocent. If they are guilty, then it should be heavily punished.

 

[no1_gangsta_786]

After just seeing the picture...*if* it is a pakistani player picking at that seam i think it is Shahid Nazir. I think that Metro should show a full picture of the player picking at the ball if they have it and expose the player.

 

[deeps]

What makes you think it's Shahid Nazir?

I don't think it's him, as he hadn't even been given the ball until Gul was replaced from the attack, immediately after the ball was changed.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What makes you think it's Shahid Nazir?

I don't think it's him, as he hadn't even been given the ball until Gul was replaced from the attack, immediately after the ball was changed.

Maybe he was fielding at midoff or midon and the ball was tossed to him between deliveries. Entirely possible. I find it baffling that in this day of so many cameras, there's no video footage of said incident.

 

[Dasa]

Umpires' case looking a bit weak if this is accurate ...

To complicate matters further, Cricinfo has learnt that no individual has been identified and no specific incident highlighted in the umpires' report. Pakistan have also strenuously denied the charge. Pakistan officials who have seen the ball are adamant that there are no signs that the ball has been tampered; the very fact that they were willing to protest means they took serious offence to the charge. Essentially, that means that if no video evidence emerges, it boils down to Hair's word against Pakistan's, based on the state of a 55-overs-old battered ball. It is the worst possible situation, for neither will it definitively exonerate Pakistan nor will it vindicate either umpire.

 

[Fusion]

That metro picture is a non-story. Unless they can produce the full picture, who took it, approximately what time, then it's not even worth discussing. And even after they do that, that picture is hardly any proof that tampering is going on. That hardly looks like someone lifting the seam. It could have been a mini second of someone's nail brushing the ball to remove dirt that got captured. Or any number of other explanations. If metro has a series of photos showing this, or if Sky can produce video based on the approximate time, then we have something. Otherwise, blah.

 

[Sanz]

Bobby Woolmer :-

""I personally asked every member of the team, under oath basically, whether they had at any time scratched the ball during the innings and to a man they said no......I went to ask to see the ball. I looked at the ball and came to my own conclusions. I didn't see any undue tampering with the ball - and in 38 years I have seen tampering with balls..........It had been hit into the stands on numerous occasions by Kevin Pietersen. I didn't think there were any undue marks, but that is a personal opinion. Having asked my team I can concur with them there was probably just damage from concrete and whatever."

On the part in magenta - Needless to say that Bobby is wrong about that because afaik KP didn't hit that ball for 6.