***Official*** Pakistan in England

[open365]

Who is "they"? If the majority of the teams agree (India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Indies), then that is that.

I never said they in that quote, you don't get the point, the ICC will not let Darrel Hair not umpire in games involving these sides but let him umpire in other games, it's either all or none.

And Asia doesn't rule cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

I never said they in that quote, you don't get the point, the ICC will not let Darrel Hair not umpire in games involving these sides but let him umpire in other games, it's either all or none.

Maybe, and in that case, it ought to be none.

And Asia doesn't rule cricket.

No, but neither does the old guard. And if 5 out of 8 want him to go...what do you think will happen?

 

[open365]

It is not an argument to let him examine the evidence that labeled him a cheat.

Yes it is.

What do you expect Inzamam to do? Just look at it and not say anything?

 

[open365]

Maybe, and in that case, it ought to be none.



No, but neither does the old guard. And if 5 out of 8 want him to go...what do you think will happen?

I have seen no evidence of the West Indies or Bangladesh wanting him gone.

 

[silentstriker]

I never said they in that quote, you don't get the point, the ICC will not let Darrel Hair not umpire in games involving these sides but let him umpire in other games, it's either all or none.

Maybe, and in that case, it ought to be none.

And Asia doesn't rule cricket.

No, but neither does the old guard. And if 5 out of 8 want him to go...what do you think will happen?



India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, West Indies

vs.

England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa


The biggest X-Factor is West Indies. Traditionally, they've been allied with England/Australia, but recently they've been voting with the Asian Bloc.

 

[silentstriker]

I have seen no evidence of the West Indies or Bangladesh wanting him gone.

Ya, Bangladesh will almost certainly vote with the other Asian countries, they won't risk otherwise. West Indies could go either way, but recently they've been looking to forge stronger ties with the Asian countries, and I think they would vote with them. Politics .

 

[open365]

Stop making cricket a battle of the races/countries, this is the thing cricket has been trying to eliminate, Asia seems to want to be singled out, face it, your just another country, no ones playing polotics here, the ICC should make the decisions.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes it is.

What do you expect Inzamam to do? Just look at it and not say anything?

Question is - what do you expect him to do? Grab a chair and break the umpires' head with it? He may examine it and say he disagrees, or say nothing. But it is his right to at least see what has damned his team.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

No, but neither does the old guard. And if 5 out of 8 want him to go...what do you think will happen?

What happened to England and New Zealand?

(plus, I think there's a couple of associates on the executives board - not that I'm quite sure who appoints and removes umpires - it might be the cricket committee, which still has 13 members, plus the president and CEO.)

 

[open365]

Ya, Bangladesh will almost certainly vote with the other Asian countries, they won't risk otherwise. West Indies could go either way, but recently they've been looking to forge stronger ties with the Asian countries, and I think they would vote with them. Politics .

And it's not going to be a vote situation.

The iCC aren't going to post a thread on ICCforums.net with a poll saying Hair:Yay or Nay?

It doesn't work like that.

PS, i'd vote Nay.

 

[silentstriker]

Stop making cricket a battle of the races/countries, this is the thing cricket has been trying to eliminate, Asia seems to want to be singled out, face it, your just another country, no ones playing polotics here, the ICC should make the decisions.

The ICC consists of a board of member countries. The member countries make a decision = ICC makes a decision. It has little to do with race (everything to do with money).

I don't think India (or any other country) is more than 'just another country.' Personally, I think England is the most important country in cricket. I've said this on numerous occassions...but this is very much about politics.

 

[silentstriker]

And it's not going to be a vote situation.

The iCC aren't going to post a thread on ICCforums.net with a poll saying Hair:Yay or Nay?

It doesn't work like that.

PS, i'd vote Nay.

Yes, I get it. But you realize that the test countries can pretty much do anything they want, if they get a majority...right?

PS, I'd vote nay too (assuming the questrion is: Should Hair continue to be allowed to umpire international games?).

 

[maxpower]

An umpire doesn't need catergorical video evidence or even know the player who did it to call ball tampering.

Darrel Hair acted the laws of the game to the letter, you can not fault him in that regard.

which is why the protest by Pak might be more effective in getting ICC to update its old outdated laws, which allow umpires like Hair to use the letter of the law to tranish reputations, carriers of international players, who go through all kinds of scrutiny after the allegations, while no matter what the umpires go unchecked, without having to worry about anything at all. Checks and balances are needed even for umpires.

 

[Beleg]

As several people have pointed out already, still no hard evidence except for a shoddy picture which has been thoroughly discredited.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If Mr Hair saw tampering with his own eyes then he's entitled to make that decision whether or not the 27 TV cameras saw it or not. If he's guessing based on the state of the ball then he should be removed from the panel immediately.

 

[barmyarmy]

http://www.timesnow.tv/articleshow/1913784.cms
Afridi admits to tampering

Don't know if anyone here has noticed this. It's an interview from February where Shahid Afridi implies that ball tampering is widespread in the Pakistan team.

I'm certainly not pointing the finger wrt anything that did or did not happen on sunday; just saying that this interview is extremely embarrassing for Pakistan at the present time.

 

[FRAZ]

The ICC consists of a board of member countries. The member countries make a decision = ICC makes a decision. It has little to do with race (everything to do with money).

I don't think India (or any other country) is more than 'just another country.' Personally, I think England is the most important country in cricket. I've said this on numerous occassions...but this is very much about politics.

Well !!!!hehehehe

 

[viktor]

If Mr Hair saw tampering with his own eyes then he's entitled to make that decision whether or not the 27 TV cameras saw it or not. If he's guessing based on the state of the ball then he should be removed from the panel immediately.

But in that case, that individual should be named as the guilty party. Instead Inzy has been named, because he is the captain of the team. This implies, IMO, that "Mr." Hair did not see anybody tampering the ball. He made his allegation based on the condition of the ball.

 

[Gotchya]

We have enough umpires to find those who can act at International level in the name of cricket, not themselves. Hair must never officiate in a Test or ODI again. It's not something you can bend the rules for, though.

I most certainly hope that we come to that. Being able to find umpires that dont *seemingly* have any ulterior motives. Any reasonable man, anyone... but Hair could have handled it better.

Agreed. The rules MUST be respected or we stand No where. But I say this on behalf of a majority of us in Pakistan, that evidence if shown and be it conclusive, I for one am ALL for punishing Inzamam or for that matter the team.

Otherwise, no one can help racial slurs and suspicion growing Beyond anyones control.

I am hoping against hope that the ICC for once gets it right.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As several people have pointed out already, still no hard evidence except for a shoddy picture which has been thoroughly discredited.

Has it?

It's slightly ambiguous, but it could suggest that there may possibly be a case to answer.

I think the outcome of the case against Inzi could rest on what level the ICC set the burden of proof at. If it's the standard criminal law beyond reasonable doubt I'm sure Inzi & Pakistan will be exonerated of the ball-tampering. The trouble is, that isn't the standard applied in cricket games; umpires frequently err (and with the technology now available, demonstrably so) but, by and large, their decision is accepted as the final word. Will this be the beginning of the end of umpires as being the ultimate arbiters of the game?

Also, whilst no-one likes to be called a cheat, I personally think it's OTT to say it is an insult to a nation's pride when a team (or maybe just one player in that team) is accused of it. The sad fact is that Pakistani players (and, indeed, players of all nationalities) do sometimes cheat. Shahid Afridi very recently was caught dancing the two-step on a good length & Shoaib has been suspended twice for tampering in this current decade. If cheating is such a stain on a reputation, why are either of these players still selected?