***Official*** Pakistan in England

[MoxPearl]

can not believe how precious u pakistanis seem to be .. in this thread and in the media

Imran Khan calling hair "Mini hitler"

precious precious precious

Now holding the ICC at ransom "If u dont drop the charges then we wont play"

Sore bitter and precious.. bahahhaa

 

[Xuhaib]

Cricinfo hints that England triggered the ball tampering row, so now another twist in this saga.

 

[Yahto]

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

Actually no.

Umpire Venkat was interviewed yesterday, unfortunately I can't find a link to it on the web. I'll type out three specific questions and his answers to those:

Q: Can an umpire decide by just looking at the ball that it has been tampered with ?
A: It's a purely subjective decision. The umpires check the ball after every over to see if it has gone out of shape. What they decide is based on what they see. They are men in the hot seat and no one else can comment on it because there is no way to find out the 'before and after' condition.

Q: No player has been identified, so can a team be held guilty ?
A: The code changed in 2003 and now it is the captain who is held responsible if no player has been identified.

Q: Can an umpire dock a team 5 runs and get the ball changed without warning ?
A: Courtesy demands that you tell the fielding captain. But if you are convinced, then you can just go do it. There is no need to inform the captain. The decision comes up during the course of the normal inspection of the ball and whether the seam is okay or is it an abnormal shape.

The rest of the interview went along the usual lines of how wrong it was for Inzamam to not take the field later..

 

[Yahto]

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.

Exactly.

 

[GIMH]

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.

Glenn McGrath
Shane Warne
Shoaib Akhtar
Muttiah Muralitharan


Just a few bowlers who have taken wickets against us in recent times, and we never accusesd any of them of ball tampering. So, yes, it is coincidental that we've accused Asif of tampering after taking wickets against us.

 

[aussie]

Damn this is getting even more crazy by the day man, wont be surprised if the ODI series is cancelled.

 

[Dasa]

Q: No player has been identified, so can a team be held guilty ?
A: The code changed in 2003 and now it is the captain who is held responsible if no player has been identified.

If the umpire cannot find a specific incident or individual to identify and won't provide evidence, then the action can't be justified, no matter what the law or code says. The Pakistanis can always keep going back to the issue of there being no evidence (thus far). If you allow umpires to hand out punishments on a hunch, then there's no end to what powers they have on the field.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Nothing he says should be taken seriously - in my experience, he is simply a self-serving hypocrite

Well he is a politician, what else could one expect.

Reading the various reports about Fletch I wouldn't get too excited, he makes a habit of popping in to see the match referee by the sounds of things.

"It is not unusual for the England coach to meet with the match referee before play, but no complaint was made about the condition of the ball," said the ECB spokesman.

A spokesman for the England and Wales Cricket Board said Fletcher spoke with Mike Procter but made "no specific complaint about the state of the ball".

From the Beeb.

 

[Dasa]

The game is adjudicated by umpires.

On the field, their word is final.

Even if they make decisions without evidence and effectively accuse one team of cheating? You wouldn't stand for such authoritarianism in your everyday life, why stand for it in cricket? The umpires aren't above everyone else.

If the attitude is "when things go against us, we wont play" then do everyone a favour and go away.

Of course, it's all that simple.

 

[honestbharani]

How was Hair supposed to show him the ball when it happened to be in the possession of the match referee ?

By getting it from the match referee or by taking him to the match referee? What's so wrong with doing that? When u make such a serious accusation against a team, it is only fair that you at least show them what made you suspect such a thing.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Oh no, but he does. Ball tampering is a serious accusation and if he cannot prove it, then it is he who has to bite the dust, not the team he wrongly accuses at his own whims and fancies.

 

[honestbharani]

When Darrel Hair walked into the dressing room, the ball was all the way back in the match refferee's office, he came there to ask if Pakistan wanted to continue playing, not to start another controversial argument. If Darrel Hair had the ball on him at the time, then it would have been stupid if he didn't let Inzy see it, but as it was, i think Darrel Hair was right to say what he did.

And anyway, i think Inzamam would have punched him if he showed him a ball with no evident marks of ball tampering(presumpiton but that's probably the case) and even though it would be great to see Inzamam punch him or argue with him, it would have only led to more ill feeling and probably a dissent fine for Inzy.

Anything is worth it if it gets rid of Darrell Hair. I mean, even if the whole thing is proven and it does turn out that Pakistan actually tampered with the ball, he still could have gone over the whole thing in a much better manner. He has still shown that he has that authoritarian streak (or watever it is called) and it is best for the game that he is taken out as soon as possible.

 

[honestbharani]

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?

Do you really want to believe HAIR because the laws say so? I am sorry. This is a serious charge and we need CONCRETE evidence which I am guessing does not exist. It is time for Darrell Hair to Hasta La Vista, Baby.

 

[SJS]

Slightly bizarre comments from Imran Khan on Sky Sports News. He reckons that Pakistan should consider taking legal action against the umpires for defamation. He should know that this wouldn't stand up in court and in fact could result in a counter claim against them for accusing him of failing to be impartial when umpiring matches involving Pakistan.
Imran also said that they should have stayed and continued playing because they were in a winning position and then made the protest. But surely the fact that they were prepared to jeopardise a winning position on a point of principle makes their case look stronger?

Imran is a politician and is playing to the gallery. That must always be kept in mind when he comments on something like this.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If the umpire cannot find a specific incident or individual to identify and won't provide evidence, then the action can't be justified, no matter what the law or code says. The Pakistanis can always keep going back to the issue of there being no evidence (thus far). If you allow umpires to hand out punishments on a hunch, then there's no end to what powers they have on the field.

There's not meant to be any end to the powers they have on the field. Umpires aren't politicians or police officers, they are the be-all and end-all of all decisions on the field. The ICC can reprimend or even sack them after the match, but during the match the umpires have ultimate power. As such, the game can only function if both teams accept the umpire's decision on the day, and any umpire which isn't at very least impartial with any errors made will be held to account by the authorities in the game afterwards.

That's the way cricket works, and indeed the way pretty much every sport works. I can't imagine that you haven't realised that until now. And really, the umpires do everything on a hunch. LBW decisions are made on a hunch, for instance. You can't prove conclusively whether or not they are out, just like in most cases you can't prove conclusively that ball tampering has gone on. Even if you have a photograph of a fielder running his nails along the seam, it's pretty hard to differentiate between picking the seam and just cleaning it or whatever. The only thing the umpires can use, aside from witnessing strange behaviour with the ball, is what state the ball is in when they check it at the end of every over. If it's in a state which can't be explained by the usual way a ball would be treated, then they are well within their rights to assume ball tampering has gone on. It's happened before, after all.

The thing that really annoys me about the debates about this decision is the idea behind it all that the umpires are quite simply completely in the wrong to have punished Pakistan for tampering with the ball. Full stop, end of story, they shouldn't have done it. I mean, how dare they enforce the rules as written with reference to their views of what was occuring on the field? They surely should have just done absolutely nothing if they suspected ball tampering was going on, without a taped confession.

Really, what possible conclusive evidence could be brought forward which would make the decision right suddenly, in the minds of those who decided as soon as it happened that it was incorrect? Has there EVER been a ball tampering decision where everyone agreed on what had occured? There's always doubt, and the role of the umpire is to sort it out. Fair enough if Pakistan didn't think they'd tampered with the ball, but that's what umpires do, they make decisions that not everyone is likely to agree with. I don't think much of Hair and I won't shed a tear if he's dumped, and chances are no real ball tampering went on, but it's just like any other umpiring decision - you move on and you play the game, and complain afterwards if you think it was unfair.

 

[honestbharani]

blame where it belongs? don't yet blow that whistle mate...nothing proven either way!

And so innocent till proven rule says that Inzy and the Pak team are still innocent.

 

[honestbharani]

There's not meant to be any end to the powers they have on the field. Umpires aren't politicians or police officers, they are the be-all and end-all of all decisions on the field. The ICC can reprimend or even sack them after the match, but during the match the umpires have ultimate power. As such, the game can only function if both teams accept the umpire's decision on the day, and any umpire which isn't at very least impartial with any errors made will be held to account by the authorities in the game afterwards.

That's the way cricket works, and indeed the way pretty much every sport works. I can't imagine that you haven't realised that until now. And really, the umpires do everything on a hunch. LBW decisions are made on a hunch, for instance. You can't prove conclusively whether or not they are out, just like in most cases you can't prove conclusively that ball tampering has gone on. Even if you have a photograph of a fielder running his nails along the seam, it's pretty hard to differentiate between picking the seam and just cleaning it or whatever. The only thing the umpires can use, aside from witnessing strange behaviour with the ball, is what state the ball is in when they check it at the end of every over. If it's in a state which can't be explained by the usual way a ball would be treated, then they are well within their rights to assume ball tampering has gone on. It's happened before, after all.

The thing that really annoys me about the debates about this decision is the idea behind it all that the umpires are quite simply completely in the wrong to have punished Pakistan for tampering with the ball. Full stop, end of story, they shouldn't have done it. I mean, how dare they enforce the rules as written with reference to their views of what was occuring on the field? They surely should have just done absolutely nothing if they suspected ball tampering was going on, without a taped confession.

Really, what possible conclusive evidence could be brought forward which would make the decision right suddenly, in the minds of those who decided as soon as it happened that it was incorrect? Has there EVER been a ball tampering decision where everyone agreed on what had occured? There's always doubt, and the role of the umpire is to sort it out. Fair enough if Pakistan didn't think they'd tampered with the ball, but that's what umpires do, they make decisions that not everyone is likely to agree with. I don't think much of Hair and I won't shed a tear if he's dumped, and chances are no real ball tampering went on, but it's just like any other umpiring decision - you move on and you play the game, and complain afterwards if you think it was unfair.

But, Sean, LBWs and illegal bowling actions are not the same as ball tampering. Here you are accusing a team or some players of the team of deliberately cheating to try and win the game. And of course, cricketers are ambassadors of their country, whether you like it or not. And in a way, it does become an insult to a nation when they are accused of cheating and not backed up with enough proof. I am sorry, Sean, the umps may REMAIN the final and only authority on most things but there is no way they can be the final authority over accusations such as this, esp. when there is no proof. I mean, it is totally different if the cameras caught the person in the act and then the umps jumped in and punished them. Here, they are saying someone is cheating off a hunch and you expect ppl to believe that? I mean, how would you feel if a cop came down to ur house and arrested you on a charge of murder because he had a hunch?

 

[social]

Even if they make decisions without evidence and effectively accuse one team of cheating? You wouldn't stand for such authoritarianism in your everyday life, why stand for it in cricket? The umpires aren't above everyone else.


Of course, it's all that simple.

Hair obviously believed he had all the evidence required.

And it is that simple. Don't want to accept the umpires decision, then dont play.

How many times have we seen members of this forum get all up in arms because a player makes a fuss about a decision going against them.

Now, we have a team throwing in the towel for the first time in history because of one decision and you want me to give them sympathy.

Give me a break!!!

They are a disgrace to their country and to the game.

I'm only surprised that they havent played the race card yet but history dictates that that's only a matter of time.

 

[honestbharani]

Hair obviously believed he had all the evidence required.

And it is that simple. Don't want to accept the umpires decision, then dont play.

How many times have we seen members of this forum get all up in arms because a player makes a fuss about a decision going against them.

Now, we have a team throwing in the towel for the first time in history because of one decision and you want me to give them sympathy.

Give me a break!!!

They are a disgrace to their country and to the game.

I'm only surprised that they havent played the race card yet but history dictates that that's only a matter of time.

And he also believes he doesn't need to show them that. I mean, criminals in INdia would be treated better than how Hair seems to have treated Pakistan.

 

[honestbharani]

Hair obviously believed he had all the evidence required.

And it is that simple. Don't want to accept the umpires decision, then dont play.

How many times have we seen members of this forum get all up in arms because a player makes a fuss about a decision going against them.

Now, we have a team throwing in the towel for the first time in history because of one decision and you want me to give them sympathy.

Give me a break!!!

They are a disgrace to their country and to the game.

I'm only surprised that they havent played the race card yet but history dictates that that's only a matter of time.

They are a disgrace because they protested when they felt they were wrongly accused of cheating?


So you mean standing up against wrong accusations is a disgrace?