***Official*** Pakistan in England

[honestbharani]

What about saying what someone did was a disgrace without even knowing any facts - let alone being absolutely sure of them?

hmmm.. social?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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?

It'd be totally unjust, but if an umpire made a decision against me in a cricket match on a hunch I'd accept it, though I might be annoyed depending on how outrageous it was. I totally understand why the Pakistani players and fans would be annoyed at the ball tampering decision if they think it was incorrect, but that doesn't mean that it was the wrong decision to make. The fact is, if the umpires think the ball has been tampered with, the laws of the game require them to do what they did. Obviously evidence would be nice, but as I said, how well can you actually prove something like this?

Consider other ball tampering cases, like say the Atherton one or the Tendulkar one. In both cases, it was said they had evidence, and in both cases some people (or indeed many people) didn't think that evidence proved ball tampering. The same goes for pretty much every other ball tampering case where players don't actually admit to the cheating. Again, it's not the anger at the decision that bothers me, it's the idea that the decision should not have been made under any circumstances. Basically, that accusing someone of ball tampering is outside of the realms of reasonable umpire behaviour without some sort of airtight perfect evidence. That's the idea conveyed by some people on this forum, and also the idea conveyed by the Pakistani reaction to the decision.

 

[SJS]

BTW, can anyone tell me that if Pakistan felt the ball tampering episode was an insult to the nation of Pakistan (Inzy has said in slightly different words) then why did the Pakistan team come back on the field after 50 minutes of 'protest' ?

 

[honestbharani]

Nothing has come to light so far to show that there is any direct evidence of any Pakistani player having tampered with the ball. The damage to the ball is circumstancial evidence at best and not particularly solid.

Similarly, nothing has come to light to show that Inzy and his team had any intention of returning to the ground after 'a few minutes of protest'. Clearly they were 'forced' into coming out when Sharyar and co. realised they had landed themselves into an unholy mess a good 50 minutes after the original protest started.

Both Hair, unless he has evidence or saw something that we are nmot yet aware of, as well as the Pakistani team/captain made grave errors and that is what people on either side of this debate need to realise.

The fact that we continue to think one or the other is completely right and the other completely wrong is because of our own pre-conceived notions and inability to look beyond deeply ingrained but misplaced sense of loyalty to our own.

See, SJS, I completely agree that Pak handled this in a really bad way, but the way I look at it... Hair is the cause of all this mess. He was the one who decided to change the ball and award penalty runs and it all started from there. Therefore, no matter how badly Pakistan handled this, he is the one who should get the ultimate blame (or credit).

 

[honestbharani]

It'd be totally unjust, but if an umpire made a decision against me in a cricket match on a hunch I'd accept it, though I might be annoyed depending on how outrageous it was. I totally understand why the Pakistani players and fans would be annoyed at the ball tampering decision if they think it was incorrect, but that doesn't mean that it was the wrong decision to make. The fact is, if the umpires think the ball has been tampered with, the laws of the game require them to do what they did. Obviously evidence would be nice, but as I said, how well can you actually prove something like this?

Consider other ball tampering cases, like say the Atherton one or the Tendulkar one. In both cases, it was said they had evidence, and in both cases some people (or indeed many people) didn't think that evidence proved ball tampering. The same goes for pretty much every other ball tampering case where players don't actually admit to the cheating. Again, it's not the anger at the decision that bothers me, it's the idea that the decision should not have been made under any circumstances. Basically, that accusing someone of ball tampering is outside of the realms of reasonable umpire behaviour without some sort of airtight perfect evidence. That's the idea conveyed by some people on this forum, and also the idea conveyed by the Pakistani reaction to the decision.

but wasn't there video evidence of both of them doing something with the ball? Here we dont even have that and Hair is accusing them of tampering the ball deliberately. I am sorry, Sean, right from the start I felt Hair was in the wrong and events since then only seem to vindicate that thought. I have said this earlier and I repeat again, if things get proven and Pak did indeed tamper with the ball, then I apologize for all this and take everything back. But so far, nothing has come up.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

but wasn't there video evidence of both of them doing something with the ball? Here we dont even have that and Hair is accusing them of tampering the ball deliberately. I am sorry, Sean, right from the start I felt Hair was in the wrong and events since then only seem to vindicate that thought. I have said this earlier and I repeat again, if things get proven and Pak did indeed tamper with the ball, then I apologize for all this and take everything back. But so far, nothing has come up.

I think you're missing my point a bit. Take the Tendulkar case - there was "evidence" in the sense that there was a photograph of him holding the ball and running his nail over it. Tendulkar claimed he was cleaning the ball. This could well be the case. The officials judged that it qualified as ball tampering. If it was a court of law and a criminal case, obviously Tendulkar would be not guilty because you can't prove conclusively that he was tampering with the ball. On a cricket field, he's guilty of ball tampering because the umpires say he is.

That's the real issue. It's virtually impossible to prove that someone was tampering with the ball, because even photo/video evidence is inconclusive almost all of the time. The only thing you can really prove absolutely is that someone did something with the ball. It's up to the umpires to decide if the ball has been tampered with by checking it after each over.

As far as the national insult thing goes, I don't really get that at all. If Shane Warne was accused of ball tampering in the Ashes this summer and the ball was changed and 5 runs awarded against Australia, I might think it was the wrong decision (obviously depending), but I certainly wouldn't be insulted by it. Frankly, who cares? If he tampered with the ball it deserves to be changed, and if he didn't it's just another umpiring error.

 

[social]

hmmm.. social?

The one clear fact is that the Pakistan team quit - for that they are a disgrace.

U seem to be defending their actions to forfeit a test match - that is totally beyond my comprehension

As to Hair providing proof, I can just imagine that conversation.

Hair: I saw so-and-so do such-and-such to the ball

Pakistanis: Prove it

Hair: I saw him

Pakistanis: Prove it

Totally pathetic

I couldnt care less if Hair never umpired another test match (he's been crap for too long IMO) but the Pakistanis reactions to the decision cannot be condoned in any way, shape or form

 

[SJS]

See, SJS, I completely agree that Pak handled this in a really bad way, but the way I look at it... Hair is the cause of all this mess. He was the one who decided to change the ball and award penalty runs and it all started from there. Therefore, no matter how badly Pakistan handled this, he is the one who should get the ultimate blame (or credit).

Again you are talking of the ball tampering AND the forfeiture as one thing while I say they are two different things though they have a cause and effect relationship of sorts.

If Gavaskar was abused (it was actually severe sledging) racially when he walked off the wicket in Australia and had he succeeded in forfeiting the match as he would have umless Durrani interfered, then he the umpires may have been faulted for not checking the 'racial abuse' (hypotehtical racial abuse) but Gavaskar would have been responsible for forfeiting the match.

Pakistan made their case of 'hurt-national-pride-comes-before-winning-or-losing-a-game' weaker by finally coming out. They were ill advised to stay in the pavillion even after Hair went to the dressing room after the first refusal to come out and made it worse by coming out AFTER it looked as if they stood to lose the match by virtue of forfeiture.

Sure, Hair may have been wrong (may have been I maintain) but Pakistan completely lost the plot. Inzy isnt the brightest guy in the world but Shaharyar Khan should have ensured that everyone knew what they were doing, its 'possible' consequences and then taken a decision and stood by it.

Today they look like they had no idea what they wanted or knew they were going to end up with.

This is NOT about Hair whom I dont like at all. This is about leadership and Pakistan seemed to have no leadership at that time.

There is no doubt whatsoever that ICC and others in authority were floundering too as the public wondered for nearly an hour as to what was happening but surely the main protaganists, viz Pakistan and the umpires should have known what they were doing.

It looks like one of these two parties wasnt so sure.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

As far as the national insult thing goes, I don't really get that at all. If Shane Warne was accused of ball tampering in the Ashes this summer and the ball was changed and 5 runs awarded against Australia, I might think it was the wrong decision (obviously depending), but I certainly wouldn't be insulted by it. Frankly, who cares? If he tampered with the ball it deserves to be changed, and if he didn't it's just another umpiring error.

I'm struggling with this one too. How is it a slight on a nation if some numpty lifts a seam?

People are far too sensitive.

 

[honestbharani]

I think you're missing my point a bit. Take the Tendulkar case - there was "evidence" in the sense that there was a photograph of him holding the ball and running his nail over it. Tendulkar claimed he was cleaning the ball. This could well be the case. The officials judged that it qualified as ball tampering. If it was a court of law and a criminal case, obviously Tendulkar would be not guilty because you can't prove conclusively that he was tampering with the ball. On a cricket field, he's guilty of ball tampering because the umpires say he is.

That's the real issue. It's virtually impossible to prove that someone was tampering with the ball, because even photo/video evidence is inconclusive almost all of the time. The only thing you can really prove absolutely is that someone did something with the ball. It's up to the umpires to decide if the ball has been tampered with by checking it after each over.

As far as the national insult thing goes, I don't really get that at all. If Shane Warne was accused of ball tampering in the Ashes this summer and the ball was changed and 5 runs awarded against Australia, I might think it was the wrong decision (obviously depending), but I certainly wouldn't be insulted by it. Frankly, who cares? If he tampered with the ball it deserves to be changed, and if he didn't it's just another umpiring error.

maybe we just view things differently, but then again, cricket has to respect the cultural differences as well. While it may not be a big deal to be called a cheat for an Australian, it may be a big deal for a player from Pakistan. And if Hair can't appreciate that, that is enough alibi to oust him from the elite panel.

 

[honestbharani]

The one clear fact is that the Pakistan team quit - for that they are a disgrace.

U seem to be defending their actions to forfeit a test match - that is totally beyond my comprehension

As to Hair providing proof, I can just imagine that conversation.

Hair: I saw so-and-so do such-and-such to the ball

Pakistanis: Prove it

Hair: I saw him

Pakistanis: Prove it

Totally pathetic

I couldnt care less if Hair never umpired another test match (he's been crap for too long IMO) but the Pakistanis reactions to the decision cannot be condoned in any way, shape or form

he hasnt even named a player, from wat we know so far. So there goes that theory of yours.


BTW, I think Pakistan handled this affair horribly. But they did say they were ready to come out and play. Both sides were ready to come out and play but Hair and Doctrove didn't. So they basically quit the game when the teams were ready to resume. Who is in disgrace then?

 

[honestbharani]

Again you are talking of the ball tampering AND the forfeiture as one thing while I say they are two different things though they have a cause and effect relationship of sorts.

If Gavaskar was abused (it was actually severe sledging) racially when he walked off the wicket in Australia and had he succeeded in forfeiting the match as he would have umless Durrani interfered, then he the umpires may have been faulted for not checking the 'racial abuse' (hypotehtical racial abuse) but Gavaskar would have been responsible for forfeiting the match.

Pakistan made their case of 'hurt-national-pride-comes-before-winning-or-losing-a-game' weaker by finally coming out. They were ill advised to stay in the pavillion even after Hair went to the dressing room after the first refusal to come out and made it worse by coming out AFTER it looked as if they stood to lose the match by virtue of forfeiture.

Sure, Hair may have been wrong (may have been I maintain) but Pakistan completely lost the plot. Inzy isnt the brightest guy in the world but Shaharyar Khan should have ensured that everyone knew what they were doing, its 'possible' consequences and then taken a decision and stood by it.

Today they look like they had no idea what they wanted or knew they were going to end up with.

This is NOT about Hair whom I dont like at all. This is about leadership and Pakistan seemed to have no leadership at that time.

There is no doubt whatsoever that ICC and others in authority were floundering too as the public wondered for nearly an hour as to what was happening but surely the main protaganists, viz Pakistan and the umpires should have known what they were doing.

It looks like one of these two parties wasnt so sure.

I get all that SJS, but in the Gavaskar incident the umpire wasnt the one who started it. Let us consider a hypothetical situation here: Say McGrath keeps sledging Sachin with the very worst words imaginable and Sachin gets irritated after a while and then decides to walk out and forfeit the game. I would agree that Sachin didn't handle this well but I would still say McGrath was the main reason because he STARTED it. He didn't NEED to call Sachin all that he did and he did need to appreciate the cultural differences involved. That's just the way I look it. But in this instance, it is obvious to me that Hair is the cause of the whole mess because he was the one who started it. And he is the one who has to provide the evidence because it is HIS accusation.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

maybe we just view things differently, but then again, cricket has to respect the cultural differences as well. While it may not be a big deal to be called a cheat for an Australian, it may be a big deal for a player from Pakistan. And if Hair can't appreciate that, that is enough alibi to oust him from the elite panel.

So you feel that umpires have to run the game according to the cultural differences of the team involved? If Pakistanis dislike being called cheats so much, when Afridi danced on the wicket why didn't the nation mourne? Why was this cheat that damned the good name of Pakistan not thrown to the wolves and banned by the PCB?

Surely this was a bigger insult than the Hair incedent, what with their being video evidence and concrete proof.

 

[honestbharani]

So you feel that umpires have to run the game according to the cultural differences of the team involved? If Pakistanis dislike being called cheats so much, when Afridi danced on the wicket why didn't the nation mourne? Why was this cheat that damned the good name of Pakistan not thrown to the wolves and banned by the PCB?

Surely this was a bigger insult than the Hair incedent, what with their being video evidence and concrete proof.

That is really their thing, you know. The umpires role ends once they have given evidence. IF Pakistan feels that Afridi is so damn indispensible for them inspite of being a blatant cheater on at least one occasion, there is really nothing we can do abt it. But that doesn't mean ppl can go around throwing accusations of cheating on them and then not proving it.

 

[Dasa]

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.

That's all fine, to a point. When it comes to something as serious as an allegation of cheating, then proper evidence should be provided before taking drastic action. In my opinion, they AREN'T well within their rights to assume anything about something as serious as ball-tampering.

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.

Some sort of video evidence would suffice. The matter would still be debated, but it would be something. As it stands, the umpires haven't even named anyone nor have they named an incident which they thought might've happened. Furthermore, no-one has seen the ball to see whether the umpires could be justified in their decision.

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.

...and no doubt you and others would be castigating Pakistan then for complaining. The stigma of cheating would remain with them as well even if they were proven to be innocent.

I'm struggling with this one too. How is it a slight on a nation if some numpty lifts a seam?

People are far too sensitive.

Isn't it obvious? Ball-tampering is a sensitive issue in Pakistan and they have been accused of it in the past in England. The issue has also been used in the past to insult the entire country. It's understandable that they would, rightly or wrongly, see this allegation (from an umpire perceived to be biased) as a slight on their nation.

 

[SJS]

Lets look at it differently HB.

Why do you think Inzy finally came on the field with his team?

 

[adharcric]

Doesn't the fact that no incident nor any player has been identified by Hair indicate that Hair has an anti-Pakistan (the cricket team, not the nation) bias because he just assumed by default that the only possible reason for the ball to be in such bad shape would be because of Pakistan cheating.

 

[Yahto]

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.

Are you kidding ?

The Pakistani team had an entire Tea Break in which they could have paid the Match Referee a visit and asked to see the ball. Blaming Hair for not being able to hand over to the Pakistanis something he didn't have in his possession is clutching at straws.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

That is really their thing, you know. The umpires role ends once they have given evidence. IF Pakistan feels that Afridi is so damn indispensible for them inspite of being a blatant cheater on at least one occasion, there is really nothing we can do abt it. But that doesn't mean ppl can go around throwing accusations of cheating on them and then not proving it.

It is their thing as you say. It just seems odd that honour can come and go so quickly depending on what flavour of honour it is.

I think of Afridi as perhaps the least honourable cricketer around, yet he plays for a self-styled honourable team; how do they square that?

The fact is every team from every nation tries to play the game is the correct manner, and believing in sky pixies and the mountain ramblings of a 6/7c warlord doesn't give one any higher ground (nor for that matter would an Xtian or Zionist 11 be any better off).

This is a game of cricket, entertainment for the paying public, who were certainly insulted if anyone was.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Some sort of video evidence would suffice. The matter would still be debated, but it would be something. As it stands, the umpires haven't even named anyone nor have they named an incident which they thought might've happened. Furthermore, no-one has seen the ball to see whether the umpires could be justified in their decision.

And what if the incident wasn't caught on camera? Hair and Doctrove don't carry them around obviously, and they might have seen something themselves. Or alternatively, what if the person who commited the act was, unbelievably, actually good at it? In other words, they managed to keep it out of sight. If you think about it, there's a few ways a player could tamper with the ball without it being visible, even if they were on camera the whole time. An object in the pocket is the obvious idea. There has to be some way for the umpires to respond to ball tampering when they haven't caught someone in the act but they have seen the evidence on the ball. I'm not saying that necessary happened in this case, but the ability for the umpires to enforce the law in this way is there for a reason.

...and I have no doubt you and others would be castigating Pakistan then for complaining.

On the contrary, it'd be the exact opposite. At the start of this whole affair, I was entirely on Pakistan's side. I thought Inzy was utterly flawless in his on-field conduct. He questioned the decision, the umpires explained it, he got on with the game and discussed it with the side at tea. That was the perfect way to behave, and I doubt many other captains would have taken it that well.

If Pakistan had gone on and complained afterwards by stating they didn't tamper with the ball and the decision was unfair, and the umpires didn't provide a good explaination of why they thought it was happening, Pakistan would have been well within their rights to be very annoyed. Refusing to play however was absolutely the wrong way to behave, and I can't imagine how anyone could think it was.

Anyway, how can you of all people argue that it is "an insult to a nation"? Would you feel insulted if Australia got busted for ball tampering? Or India, or whatever other nation you might feel some sort of connection to? It's just ridiculous. It was, if anything, an insult to the players on the cricket team, and I'm a born and raised Australian and I support the Australian cricket team, but if Warne or someone was busted for ball tampering I'd never be insulted, even if the decision was completely wrong. At most it'd be something you'd be angry about.