***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Fusion]

Anyone who is near Sky Sports News they apparently have tomorrows Telegraph with "Asif Accused" as the headline (nothing online yet). It seems that Fletcher has pointed the finger at Asif.
They will be showing back pages again in 15 minutes.

Woah what?!? Fletcher has accused Asif, not Hair?? This is going to make the controversy grow by leaps and bounds! Someone please watch Sky and fill the rest of us in who don't have that channel.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Fletcher had supposedly visited the match referee in the match voicing his concerns, can't remember when exactly he was supposed to have done this but it wasn't like 5 minutes before the penalty or anything. Seemed like this story is in most of the British papers.

 

[barmyarmy]

Woah what?!? Fletcher has accused Asif, not Hair?? This is going to make the controversy grow by leaps and bounds! Someone please watch Sky and fill the rest of us in who don't have that channel.

Backpages as seen by me on Sky Sports News:

"Asif Accused" - Daily Mail
"Fletcher caught up row over ball tampering" - Independent (link)
"England Triggered Ball Row" - Daily Telegraph

Looks like the Proverbial is going to hit the fan tomorrow...

 

[Mecnun]

Ohhh there go the great relationship between PCB and ECB that Sharyar Khan claimed if the story has any truth in it.

If Asif is accused then Hair needs to accuse him in the context of this match but I see law suit if no evidence is forthcoming!!

 

[Dasa]

It seems a bit coincidental that England are now accusing Asif of tampering with the ball after he's taken wickets against them. It seems like there's no proof either. I wonder how the English management would react if Simon Jones of Flintoff were accused of ball-tampering after the Ashes.

 

[Fusion]

Ohhh there go the great relationship between PCB and ECB that Sharyar Khan claimed if the story has any truth in it.

If Asif is accused then Hair needs to accuse him in the context of this match but I see law suit if no evidence is forthcoming!!

Well the relationship will definately be damaged. But it will really become tense if Fletcher admits he accused Asif and asked the umpires to watch Pak players because he suspected tampering. As it is right now, I doubt Fletcher will come out and admit all this. He'll simply say "no comment" or that his meeting with the umpires were "routine".

Also, if he did tip off the umpires and the TV crew as that one article suggested, and if Trescothic was watching the Pak players with binoculars, then it exonerates the Pakistani players IMO. Because if they were tampering, surely the intense scrutiny they were under would've produced some proof!

 

[Scaly piscine]

Any chance the pro-Pakistan/anti-Hair brigade would stop making ridiculous assumptions about something they know nothing about for 5 minutes?

 

[Dasa]

Any chance the pro-Pakistan/anti-Hair brigade would stop making ridiculous assumptions about something they know nothing about for 5 minutes?

Where are these ridiculous assumptions?

 

[Fusion]

Any chance the pro-Pakistan/anti-Hair brigade would stop making ridiculous assumptions about something they know nothing about for 5 minutes?

Because you are the beacon of calm and level headedness right? Care to explain who/what you are referring to?

 

[Scaly piscine]

There are repeated assumptions that there is no proof.

 

[Fusion]

There are repeated assumptions that there is no proof.

We know a few things. We know (as confirmed by Bob Woolmer and Inzi) that no SPECIFIC Pak player was cited by the umpires. That means Hair based his decision solely on the condition of the ball. Now Sky commentators said this morning (well my morning anyway) that they have reviewed extensively all footage they have of the game and have found no evidence of ball tampering. They also said that ICC have not asked them for the footage to review, which leads me to believe the ICC know they will not find anything. And if you believe the reports that are out there, England had asked the umpires, TV crew, and their own players to watch all Pak players very closely. Still no proof. So in the end, the whole incident happened due to Hair's assumption that the ball was tempered. So...who's making the ridiculous assumptions?

 

[Dasa]

There are repeated assumptions that there is no proof.

It's safer to assume there's no proof since we haven't seen any. It's certainly more logical to assume there is no proof than to assume all Pakistanis are cheats, as you seem to do.

 

[adharcric]

There are repeated assumptions that there is no proof.

You really don't have a clue, do you? That's the way it works: innocent until proven guilty.
As Dasa said, you seem to find it convenient to assume by default that the Pakistanis are cheaters.
Besides, nearly everyone on here has pledged support for Hair if he presents valid evidence and support for the Pakistanis in the absence of any evidence.
That seems perfectly fair and reasonable considering the uncertainty of the present situation. These "assumptions" are perfectly acceptable.

 

[deeps]

The fact that the captain is facing the ball tampering charges suggests one of two things.

1) Inzamam tampered with the ball
2) Hair does not know WHO tampered, and so through the rules, Inzamam fronts the charge.


I'm going with two, so Hair did not accuse, nor does he believe, that Asif is the culprit.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That's the way it works: innocent until proven guilty.

Seems at the moment as though we're dealing with extremes too much here.

As such, if someone argues that Pakistan is "innocent till proven guilty", people are claiming it implies that Hair is therefore "guilty till proven innocent".

 

[adharcric]

Seems at the moment as though we're dealing with extremes too much here.

As such, if someone argues that Pakistan is "innocent till proven guilty", people are claiming it implies that Hair is therefore "guilty till proven innocent".

Well, these two terms - "guilty" and "innocent" - apply when there is a charge placed on someone. The charge here is on Pakistan, so they are "innocent till proven guilty" until evidence is presented. Everything else is an implication of this. Hair is really only "guilty" of accusing without evidence - which is the way it has to be.

 

[Fusion]

Seems at the moment as though we're dealing with extremes too much here.

As such, if someone argues that Pakistan is "innocent till proven guilty", people are claiming it implies that Hair is therefore "guilty till proven innocent".

But if you look at it from a "basic law" perspective, Hair accused Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan are the defendants, and as such, innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean Hair is guilty, it just means the presumption of innocence lies with Pakistan.

 

[Fusion]

Well, these two terms - "guilty" and "innocent" - apply when there is a charge placed on someone. The charge here is on Pakistan, so they are "innocent till proven guilty" until evidence is presented. Everything else is an implication of this. Hair is really only "guilty" of accusing without evidence - which is the way it has to be.

haha, beat me to it!

 

[JBH001]

Jeez, I haven't followed the test and I come back to this!

Man....
What a debacle....

I do not know if this has been posted or not - as I have not read all the recent posts, but was it not far too unilateral of Hair to make his initial ruling?
Should he not have run it by the Match Referee after play ended or during an interval - I always assumed this was one of the reasons for the existence of the match referee in the first instance. Hair really seems to have overstepped his bounds on this one.

If he has - and no evidence is found - then the ICC should really toss him out of the umpiring panel. However, as usual, they seemed to have handled this very ineptly.

Speaking of which, here is an interesting article on the matter:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandpakistan2006/story/0,,1855354,00.html

 

[JBH001]

The Asian bloc should exert some influence and refuse to play in all matches where he is the umpire.

I am sure Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka will agree. Bangladesh will probably join them too. And more than likely WI can be persuaded by India to vote with them (if it comes to that)...so that will be Pakista, India, Sri Lanka, Bangaldesh and West Indies vs. England, Australia and South Africa.

Brownies and Darkies vs. The Whitie's?

My money is on the Brownie's and Darkie's.