***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Yahto]

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.

And for the last time, the ball is the evidence. Umpires are not required to have actually caught a player in the act of tampering with the ball, nor do they require to provide video footage of such an incident.

 

[Dasa]

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.

Do you know that someone from the Pakistan team or team management didn't?

 

[Yahto]

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' ?

Shh. You aren't supposed to mention that. The facade of this being an issue of pride must be maintained.

 

[SJS]

Do you know that someone from the Pakistan team or team management didn't?

Does anyone know that they did and were refused?

PLUS did Inzy ask to see the ball when a new one was called for on the field? If yes was he refused?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

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.

And Afridi's dance, how was this perceived? He is still a hero is he not. Doesn't seem to smell right, people are up-in-arms about the umpires but still support Afridi who has surely "soured an honourable nation" with his actions?

 

[Yahto]

Do you know that someone from the Pakistan team or team management didn't?

If they did, there's no reason for them to demand the ball from Hair in the dressing room when they plainly would have known who was in possession of the ball.

If they didn't, they're the ones who'll have to answer to that.

 

[Yahto]

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.

I'm offended by the sight of a raised finger. Must the umpire never give me out ?

 

[Dasa]

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.

...but then there's no way to know that the change in the ball was due to a player deliberately doing something it. It just becomes speculation on the part of the umpire.

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.

I don't think it was necessarily the right thing to do, but I understand why they did what they did.

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.

I haven't argued that it was an insult to the nation. I've been saying it's an insult to the team to be accused of cheating, and explaining why it could've been perceived as an insult to the nation.

 

[Dasa]

Does anyone know that they did and were refused?

PLUS did Inzy ask to see the ball when a new one was called for on the field? If yes was he refused?

That's another problem with the whole thing. No one knows what has gone on behind closed doors, and whether anything of that nature was tried by any of the Pakistanis.

And Afridi's dance, how was this perceived? He is still a hero is he not. Doesn't seem to smell right, people are up-in-arms about the umpires but still support Afridi who has surely "soured an honourable nation" with his actions?

It certainly doesn't. I'm not saying it's right to say it's a slight on the nation, but that's how they feel.

 

[barmyarmy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/5273582.stm

BBC are now covering the Afridi story which definitely lends it legitimacy.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/5273582.stm

BBC are now covering the Afridi story which definitely lends it legitimacy.

It certainly does. Surprised this didn't surface at the time though.

Afridi is a ****.

And that's all there is to it.

No debate, no appeal, he's just a ****.

The sooner he's thrown out of the game the better.

 

[SJS]

What others think

1. Mark Nicholas
writing in the Telegraph (Very insightful article)

excerpts :

- Clearly, Pakistan should have come out to play after tea
- a higher authority should have become involved before such drastic action took place - either at Inzamam's behest or through the intervention of coach Bob Woolmer or tour manager Zaheer Abbas

- It seems inconceivable that the umpires suddenly spotted a tampered ball at the Oval and acted upon it without warning. Either they, the match referee, England or an outside agent must have been monitoring the situation and seen something that broke the camel's back

- There must be something beneath the surface we don't know. If not, the umpires are guilty of an appalling misjudgment on the spur of a highly emotive moment

- have not seen Sunday's ball but its state did not look alarming on television. If Inzamam thought he had a case, why on earth did he not protest there and then? Why wait?

- Darrell Hair would argue that his job is to apply the letter of the law to a cricket game and not allow any previous disharmony between the competitors to influence his thinking. I have no idea what Billy Doctrove thinks, but it is a fair bet he wishes he was on the beach back home

- In 1991, Hampshire's overseas player was Aqib Javed. On a beautiful day and confronted by a flat pitch, he began to dry and then gently further scuff the already old, ragged ball in the hope it would reverse swing. Somerset had 300 and plenty for not many at the time and the cricket was hopelessly in favour of batsmen. Suddenly the ball did start to swing and I, as captain of Hampshire, quietly approved of Aqib's efforts. It did not seem a big deal to me, no different from scuffing up the pitch to help your own bowlers

- You do not have to cheat to reverse swing an old ball, far from it.

- David Shepherd was umpiring that Hampshire-Somerset match and called me over when he saw the suddenly-swinging ball. "Eh, captain," he said, "have a look at this" and he showed me the ball. It wasn't dramatic but it had altered in condition enough. He said, "we can't have this captain, oh no, you'll have to talk to your bowler, you know", and then he called Aqib over and with a kindly but firm look suggested he return the ball to its original state. This he did and Somerset kept pounding us around the park. The point is, Shepherd's brilliant handling of the situation - thoughtful and sensitive.

- I have long been in the camp of allowing the fielding team to do whatever they like with their ball so long as it does not involve an outside agent, for example a bottle top, nail, powder, cream etc. I realise that this opens a vast can of worms but better it is open and clear for all to see than covert

...to be continued

 

[SJS]

What others think :

2. Simon Briggs
writing in the Telgraph

excerpts:

- Pakistan were engaging in dangerous brinkmanship yesterday
- Hair and his partner, Billy Doctrove, were both involved in the decision to penalise Pakistan five runs for deliberately scuffing up the ball, it was clear Hair was the prime mover

- He already stood in bad odour with the tourists .......Before this match had even started, they made a protest about his presence at the game

- A world-class sport should not come to a halt, in front of a capacity crowd, because the umpires have fallen out with one of the teams

3. Geofferey Boycott
(Telegraph)

EXCERPTS:

- The ICC must be blind or stupid not to have realised that there is history between Darrell Hair.....and Pakistan

- Without seeing the match ball, it is difficult to make a judgment about whether anyone had made an attempt to change its condition

- it is quite obvious that Pakistan were deeply hurt and upset by the allegation made by Hair........ It is not the first time that such allegations have been made against Pakistan

- Imran Khan, the great figure of Pakistan cricket, admitted in his autobiography that he had used a bottle top to tamper with the ball.

- You have to remember that the Pakistan players are deeply religious and pray five times a day, so an allegation of cheating hurts them.

- Hair might be correct in the strict letter of the law but this is not the same as giving someone out lbw or stumped. This is a matter that needed to be dealt with sensitively and Hair came across as being too officious

 

[chris.hinton]

Pakistan have had a long history with Ball tampering, players like Wasim,Waqar and Asif Mujemba have all been involved in it.

Wether or not A Pakistani player tampered with the ball in the fouth test remains to be seen but i do think that Inzy should be banned for the next 3 test matches for taking drastic action, I heard rumours that KP was not happy with the ball

 

[Pedro Delgado]

You have to remember that the Pakistan players are deeply religious and pray five times a day, so an allegation of cheating hurts them.

I do not think this should be taken into consideration, peoples fantastical imaginations or teachings of David Icke-style madmen has no place in sport. Go by the laws of the game (preferably interpreted like Shepherd above rather than bull-in-a-china-shop Hair) and leave the sky pixies out of it please.

 

[SJS]

Afridi's Interview​

Q. Do you get the time to tamper with the ball?

A . We do not have that much time. Only few get to do some bit of ball tampering. If the weather is dry and hot then you can get some help from the pitch while bowling. But in that also you have to “help” the ball yourself.

Q. Earlier, I remember the ball used to go straight from the wicket-keeper to Ijaz bhai at point?

A. Yeah, those who knew about tampering at that time used to do it.

Q. They all used to have long nails also?

A. The kind of cricket that is going on, on these pitches, it’s death for the bowlers, if you don’t tamper.

Q. Do you feel bowlers get less advantage?

A. If any team tampers with the ball then I don’t think there’s anything wrong in that. It’s torture for the bowlers to bowl.

Q. Do you think the ICC should make ball tampering legal? The umpire checks you every time if you try to do something?

A. They shouldn't make it so official that teams start doing it from the 3rd or 4th over itself. I don’t think any rule can make it official. But you should be allowed to do some tampering after the 30th or 40th over. The game and its rules are changing so this should also be allowed.

Q. So you can tamper the ball after the 30th over?

A. They should keep it to a limit.

Q. Should they change the ball?

A. In any case, the ball is changed after the 35th over.

Q. Umpire Steve Bucknor always smells the ball to check whether there is anything on it?

A. Some people put sweets or Vaseline for it to shine. The gums and mints players eat are put on the ball to make it shine.

Q. Does it happen with mint?

A. Yes, it happens with mint also. Personally, I have never tried it with mint. But all these fast bowlers and fielders standing at mid-off use all this. The English players use it a lot.

 

[barmyarmy]

^ this is from February 2006 to clarify

 

[Dasa]

It'll be interesting to see the full Afridi interview. That short article says that he claimed other teams did it as well. Although I have no doubt most, if not all teams do tamper with the ball, did Afridi say it because he's seen others do it or to add legitimacy to his own actions?

edit: I see SJS has posted the interview above.

But all these fast bowlers and fielders standing at mid-off use all this. The English players use it a lot.

Interesting.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Interesting.

An accusation levelled at Simon Jones by some Aussie fellow, name escapes me, who subsequently retracted the statement IIRC. Whilst I'm not naive enough to think Englishmen are above suspicion, I'm loath to believe anything this damnable chua chodh Afridi says with regard to foreign teams.

 

[barmyarmy]

An accusation levelled at Simon Jones by some Aussie fellow, name escapes me, who subsequently retracted the statement IIRC. Whilst I'm not naive enough to think Englishmen are above suspicion, I'm loath to believe anything this damnable chua chodh Afridi says with regard to foreign teams.

It was Nathan Bracken.